Electronic Communications Act, 2005 (Act No. 36 of 2005)

Regulations

End-User and Subscriber Service Charter Regulations, 2016

Reasons Document

Amendment of the Reasons Document for the End-User and Subscriber Services Charter Amendment Regulations, 2018

2. Additional submission received and the Authority’s response
Purchase cart Previous page Return to chapter overview Next page

 

2.1Amendment to regulation 1

 

2.1.1Additional submission received

 

2.1.1.1No additional submission received.

 

2.1.2The Authority’s response

 

2.1.2.1No response.

 

2.2Amendment to regulation 4

 

2.2.1Additional submission received

 

2.2.1.1No additional submission received.

 

2.2.2The Authority’s response

 

2.2.2.1No response.

 

2.3Amendment to regulation 5 of the Regulations

 

2.3.1Additional submission received

 

2.3.1.1No additional submission received

 

2.3.2The Authority’s response

 

2.3.2.1No response

 

2.4Amendment to regulation 8 of the Regulations

 

2.4.1Additional submission received

 

2.4.1.1. No additional submission received

 

2.4.2The Authority’s response

 

2.4.2.1No response

 

2.5Insertion of regulation 8A

 

2.5.1Additional submission received

 

2.5.1.1Cell C and MTN indicated that they have received complaints from some customers who did not want to receive usage notifications.

 

2.5.1.2Cell C and MTN suggested that this provision be amended to provide end-users with an option to opt out of usage notifications.

 

2.5.2The Authority’s response

 

2.5.2.1The Authority is still of the view that usage notifications are necessary to empower end-users to monitor, and be constantly aware of, their usage. The Authority however agrees that end-users should have the option to opt-out of notifications and has amended the Regulations accordingly.

 

2.6Insertion of regulation 8B(1)(a)

 

2.6.1Additional submission received

 

2.6.1.1Cell C and MTN indicated that they have received complaints from some customers who did not want to receive usage  notifications.

 

2.6.1.2Cell C and MTN suggested that this provision be amended to provide end-users with an option to opt out of usage notifications.

 

2.6.1.3Vodacom indicated that the usage notifications were excessive and would irritate end-users who buy small and short-term data bundles.

 

2.6.1.4Vodacom suggested that small and short-term data bundles be exempted from usage notifications provisions to avoid customer irritation.

 

2.6.1.5Vodacom, Cell C and MTN suggested that the Authority exempt certain corporate services (e.g. corporate APNs) from usage notifications as it was not technically feasible to send accurate usage notifications as usage is not monitored and billed in real time.

 

2.6.2The Authority’s response

 

2.6.2.1The Authority is still of the view that usage notifications are necessary to empower end-users to monitor, and be constantly aware of, their usage. The Authority however agrees that end-users should have the option to opt-out of notifications and has amended the Regulations accordingly.

 

2.6.2.2The Authority agrees with the licensees that it is not technically feasible to implement usage notifications for certain applications such as Machine to Machine and Internet of Things.

 

2.6.2.3In addition, it should be noted that IoT or M2M applications cannot be classified as end-users and therefore, licensees are not obliged to send usage notifications to these applications.5 Licensees are however encouraged to send the notifications where IoT or M2M applications are linked to natural end-users.

 

2.7Insertion of regulation 8B(1)(b)

 

2.7.1Additional submission received

 

2.7.1.1No additional submission received.

 

2.7.2The Authority’s response

 

2.7.2.1No response.

 

2.8Insertion of regulation 8B(1)(c)

 

2.8.1Additional submission received

 

2.8.1.1Vodacom, Cell C and MTN indicated that this provision will result in job losses, loss of investor confidence, reduced tax and license fees, negative impact on customer experience and reduced investment in infrastructure.

 

2.8.1.2Vodacom, Cell C and MTN proposed a phased approach to implementation of this provision to allow the licensees to adjust their business models to account for materially lower out-of-bundle usage that will ensue.

 

2.8.1.3MTN proposed opt-out of out-of-bundle usage, as opposed to automatic out-of-bundle barring, to give end-users a choice and to minimise the immediate revenue impact.

 

2.8.1.4Vodacom suggested that licensees be allowed to give end-users an option to opt-in to out of bundle blocking as opposed to automatic out-of-bundle blocking.

 

2.8.1.5Cell C and MTN raised a concern that automatic blocking of post-paid users from out-of-bundle usage will change the nature of post-paid product which is ultra vires section 69 of the Electronic Communications Act 36 of 2005 ("ECA").

 

2.8.1.6Vodacom, Cell C and MTN suggested that the Authority exempt corporates and IoT or M2M applications from automatic out-of-bundle barring to ensure continuity or avoid disruption of services. Licensees indicated that if these services were automatically disconnected after depletion of data bundle, significant prejudice may occur.

 

2.8.2The Authority’s response

 

2.8.2.1The Authority would like to reiterate its view that defaulting end-users to out-of-bundle usage without express consent exposes end-users to the risk of bill shock as a result of high out-of-bundle charges.

 

2.8.2.2The Authority is of the view that end-users should have the option to opt-in or opt-out of the out of bundle usage and has amended the Regulations accordingly.

 

2.9Insertion of regulation 8B(2)

 

2.9.1Additional submission received

 

2.9.1.1Vodacom indicated that regulation 8B(2) does not distinguish between post-paid and other end-users whereas the Reasons Document (Gazette No. 41613) stated that regulation 8B(2) does not apply to post-paid users.

 

2.9.1.2Vodacom proposed amendment of the regulations (by explicitly excluding post-paid users from the provisions of regulation 8B(2)) to be in line with the reasons document.

 

2.9.1.3Cell C raised a concern about the proposed amendment of the reasons document to include post-paid users as highlighted in the Authority’s letter of 13 December 2018.

 

2.9.1.4Cell C also raised a concern that this provision will change the nature of post-paid as it will effectively become top-up and or prepaid.

 

2.9.1.5Cell C indicated that the inclusion of post-paid users may delay the implementation of this provision due to time constraints.

 

2.9.2The Authority’s response

 

2.9.2.1As indicated in the Authority’s letter dated 13 December 2018, it is clear that this provision applies to all end-users (including post-paid users) as it does not distinguish between postpaid, pre-paid users and hybrid users. To the extent that paragraph 3.11.2 of the reasons document creates a different impression, the contents of that paragraph are erroneous.

 

2.9.2.2In addition, for purposes of implementation and enforcement of the amendment regulations, ICASA can in law only rely on the letter of the amendment regulations (and not the reasons document as highlighted by Cell C) since the reasons document is not a  regulatory instrument.

 

2.9.2.3The Authority can therefore confirm that this provision applies to all end-users including postpaid users.

 

2.9.2.4There may be cases where the end-user makes no election at all, whether to opt-in or opt-out of out of bundle usage. In those cases, the Licensee may terminate data services or continue to provide data services on the same terms and conditions applicable under in-bundle usage.

 

2.10Insertion of regulation 8B(3)

 

2.10.1Additional submission received

 

2.10.1.1Vodacom raised a concern that this provision will affect the nature of data bundles with short validity period (i.e. hourly and daily bundles).

 

2.10.1.2Vodacom proposed exemption of corporate services such APN where data bundle is shared by subscribers connected to the APN.

 

2.10.1.3Cell C raised a concern about the implementation of this provision by Mobile Virtual Networks and resellers who are not licensees in terms of the ECA.

 

2.10.2The Authority’s response

 

2.10.2.1With regard to data bundles with short validity period, the Authority would like to refer stakeholders to paragraphs 3.12.2.3. to 3.12.2.5. of the reasons document published in Notice No. 233 of Gazette No. 41613.

 

2.10.2.2The Authority can confirm that MVNO and resellers, who are not licensees in terms of chapter 3 of the ECA, are not required to implement the amendment Regulations.

 

2.11Insertion of regulation 8B(4)

 

2.11.1Additional submission received

 

2.11.1.1ISPA raised a concern about technical feasibility with regard to the implementation of transfer of data in the fixed line environment where end-users are using the same licensee who is using different network providers.

 

2.11.1.2ISPA also raised a concern about the negative financial impact of transfer of data between end-users who are on data packages with different speeds and terms and conditions.

 

2.11.1.3ISPA raised a concern with regard to the use of the word "network".

 

2.11.1.4Cell C raised a concern about the implementation of this provision by Mobile Virtual Networks and resellers who are not licensees in terms of the ECA.

 

2.11.2. The Authority’s response

 

2.11.2.1With regard to issues raised by ISPA, the Authority would like to refer stakeholders to paragraph 3.13.2. of the reasons document published in Notice No. 233 of Gazette No. 41613.

 

2.11.2.2The Authority agreed with ISPA that the use of the word "network" was incorrect. The Authority amended regulation 8B(4) to include transfer of data "…to other end-users utilising services of the same Electronic Communications Service licensee."

 

2.11.2.3The Authority can confirm that MVNO and resellers, who are not licensees in terms of chapter 3 of the ECA, are not required to implement the amendment Regulations.

 

2.12Insertion of regulation 8B(5)

 

2.12.1Additional submission received

 

2.12.1.1Vodacom, MTN and Cell C raised a concern about technical feasibility of implementing regulation 8B with regard to IoTs or machine to machine.

 

2.12.2The Authority’s response

 

2.12.2.1The Authority is of the view that IoT or M2M cannot in any event be classified as end-users. Therefore, the provision does not apply with respect to IoTs or M2M.

 

                                                                                                   

5See the Authority’s letter to licensees dated 13 December 2018