Home | News | SPTC shutdown will ground SD – UK expert

SPTC shutdown will ground SD – UK expert

21/08/2013 02:24:00 BY SIBONGILE SUKATI

Font size:

MBABANE – An email supposedly from UK-based telecommunications expert Jeff Penberton warns that removing SPTC’s mobile component ‘will shut down’ the Corporation’s telephony system.

SPTC is the Swaziland Posts and Telecommunications Corporation.
The shutdown would result in the country facing a telephone blackout as it would not be possible to make calls from or to a fixed line.
Government offices, corporates and homesteads mostly rely on SPTC’s telephone system for their communication.

It would also be impossible for Swazi MTN to operate mobile phones because they are also reliant on SPTC’s network infrastructure.
SPTC has engaged Penberton to conduct tests on whether it is possible to terminate the mobile component of the corporation’s telephony network as sought by Swazi MTN.

Petros Dlamini, the acting Managing Director at SPTC, in his answering affidavit, has incorporated the email that is allegedly from Penberton.

The email, dated August 16, 2013, reads: “Because there is no specific ‘mobile component’ on the NGN, any removal of the ‘mobile component’ as demanded by the applicants will require the whole CDMA Access Layer infrastructure to be removed which will shut down the SPTC’s telephony system and also limit and restrict even the first applicant (Swazi MTN) ability to provide telecommunications services in Swaziland.”
Giving reasons for the email, Dlamini said they could not get Penberton to file his own affidavit because of the time constraints placed on SPTC to file its papers.

On the other hand, Amon Dlamini, the SPTC General Manager: Corporate Strategy, in his affidavit also stated that the ‘mobile component is part of the corporation’s main infrastructure.
“There is no specific ‘mobile component’ on the NGN network and that any removal will require the whole CDMA access layer infrastructure to be removed which will in turn shut down the first respondent’s (Swazi MTN) telephony system. The first respondent does not make any mobile products available to its customers and has reconfigured the Access Layer, referred to by Penberton, to restrict the ability of subscriber devices to operate on their home base stations only. It cannot do more than that,” stated Amon’s affidavit.

Swazi MTN, as per the arbitration award, wants SPTC to terminate the mobile component of its network and services operated by it.
This includes mobile data services or functions that are in competition with Swazi MTN, as well as voice and any other text messaging services.
SPTC was also ordered to cease advertising or promoting such, as long as it was signatory to the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) or the Joint Venture subsists between the parties.

When the award was made, SPTC had to cease operating its ONE mobile phones, Fixedfones and dongles.
It has since relaunched wireless products including the MiFi, Wi-max and Fixed Terminal which Swazi MTN wants shut down as they allegedly violate the existing JVA.

SPTC has argued otherwise, stating that the products are all fixed and, therefore, not competing with Swazi MTN.

‘Swazi MTN approved MiFi’

MBABANE – Swazi MTN is alleged to have approved the launch of SPTC’s MiFi product, which it now wants to be shut down.

While Swazi MTN, in its founding affidavit, claims to have discovered in January 2013 that the MiFi product was being offered to the public by SPTC, the latter refutes such.

“In fact, in a technical meeting held between the first applicant (Swazi MTN) and the first respondent (SPTC) on 21 January 2013, and which was attended by Francis Dlamini (whose confirmatory affidavit is filed evenly herewith), the first respondent disclosed to the first applicant that it intended to introduce certain ‘fixed wireless products’ into the market. One of the wireless products is the MiFi product complained of,” SPTC acting Managing Director Petros Dlamini says in his answering affidavit.

He explains that the MiFi is a wireless router which has been re-engineered to remove its mobility ability by ensuring that it cannot work without AC power and by ensuring that it is physically fixed to its intended location.
Dlamini says it is not possible under normal circumstances for an individual to move the MiFi because it also does not have a battery pack of its own to enable it to operate under its own power.

“This product was endorsed by the first applicant’s technical team. The applicants now allege that this product is part of the mobile component of the first respondent’s network and is in violation of the court order.”
The acting SPTC Managing Director states that Swazi MTN retained the services of an expert identified as Sandile Dhlomo to carry out a mobility test on the MiFi gadget.

“Significantly, in order to determine the mobility of the MiFi product, Dhlomo had to provide a vehicle to provide mobility. Furthermore, he had to modify the MiFi gadget to enable it to obtain power from the vehicle. Quite clearly, without these steps having been taken, the product was not mobile,” said Dlamini.

SPTC calls for arbitration process

MBABANE –The Swaziland Posts and Telecommunications Corporation (SPTC) wants its latest dispute with Swazi MTN to go to arbitration instead of the High Court.

This, according to SPTC acting Managing Director Petros Dlamini, is what the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) between the two telecommunications giants spells out should happen when a dispute arises.
Dlamini, in his answering affidavit, says Swazi MTN’s High Court application to have SPTC found to have violated court orders is an abuse of the process of the court.

He therefore wants Swazi MTN’s application dismissed with costs.
Swazi MTN has applied to the High Court to have SPTC’s re-launched wireless products shut down because they are allegedly in violation of three court orders and two arbitration awards of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the International Court of Arbitration (ICA).
The products in question are the MiFi, Wi-Max and Fixed Terminal gadgets. Swazi MTN claims that these products are mobile yet SPTC is not supposed to operate such gadgets since they violate the joint venture agreement which provides that the two telecommunications giants shall not compete with each other.

SPTC has maintained that the re-launched products are not mobile, but fixed, and therefore do not compete with Swazi MTN.
“The applicants similarly contend, without proof, that the Wi-Max and Fixed Terminal products are part of the mobile component of the first respondent’s (SPTC’s) telephony network. That is simply not so,” argues Dlamini in his court papers.

The applicants are, in their order; Swazi MTN, MTN International, Mobile Telephone Networks Holdings and Swazi Empowerment Limited.
Further, the acting MD says: “The applicants’ conduct in seeking to have these new products fall within the ambit of the court orders is, with respect, nothing more than an attempt by them to extend the ambit of the court orders. Whether or not these new products are fixed products or mobile products is the subject of a new dispute between the parties which must be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Venture Agreement. It is accordingly respectfully submitted that the present application is nothing more than an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court.”

Dlamini alleges that the applicants seek to have the ambit of the court orders extended to include prohibiting SPTC from launching products that were never the subject matter of the Arbitration Award or of the subsequent interdict applications.
The same argument has been advanced by Amos Dlamini, who is SPTC’s General Manager: Corporate Strategy.

In his affidavit, Amos submits: “The products complained of in the applicants’ founding affidavit are not products which are part of the ‘mobile component’ of the respondents’ network and they were not subject matter of the dispute between the parties in the Arbitration. The applicants have raised a new dispute between the parties, which falls to be submitted to arbitration in terms of the provisions of the Joint Venture Agreement between the parties. In the circumstances, it is submitted that this Honourable Court should exercise its discretion to decline to exercise its jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.”