The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Regulators are investigating the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) for preventing the planned September 3 launch of number portability, saying this had resulted from possible anti-competitive behaviour.

Revealing that the new launch date is December 2, 2013, the Utilities Regulation & Competition Authority (URCA) blasted BTC for the delay, alleging that the carrier had waited until “a very advanced stage” to begin expressing concerns over how quickly number portability was being implemented.

The regulator said it was now investigating whether BTC’s failure to be ready for fixed-line number portability amounted to a breach of the Communications Act and accompanying regulations.

And it suggested that BTC’s behaviour was designed to buttress its dominant market position in fixed-line services by impeding the ability of competitors - chiefly Cable Bahamas - to poach its customers.

BTC’s concerns, and inability to meet the September deadline, related to the transition from its ‘legacy’ fixed-line infrastructure to its New Generation Network (NGN).

All BTC’s fixed-line/landline customers are being switched to the NGN network and, in documents released yesterday, URCA said the carrier had indicated on July 30, 2013, that “just over 50 per cent” had been transferred over.

The upshot of this was that BTC fixed-line customers still on the old network would not have been able to access number portability services come September 3.

BTC, according to URCA, had advised that re-engineering its legacy network to accommodate number portability would have been “too costly and an unreasonable investment in outdated technology and equipment”.

While BTC had advised URCA that it was prepared to implement a temporary solution by August 31, half its customers on the islands of New Providence, Grand Bahama, Abaco and Eleuthera would have been unable to enjoy the benefits of number portability.

Number portability is vital to fostering competition and choice in the Bahamian communications market, as it will allow consumers to keep their existing numbers when switching to another operator - something they will be able to do from September 3, 2013, for fixed-line services only.

This will be especially valuable to Bahamian businesses, who no longer will have to spend time and money on informing customers of phone number changes.

Those harmed most by the delay in number portability’s introduction in the Bahamas are thus consumers and businesses.

Setting out the full explanation for the delay, URCA said: “BTC is currently engaged in the migration of its services from its ‘legacy’ network to a packet-switched NGN.

“BTC would not have been in a position to port customers remaining on its legacy network by the operator network readiness date of August 31, 2013.

“BTC’s indications were that, as at [July 30], just over 50 per cent of the customers on the relevant islands had been migrated to its NGN, while the remainder were still on its legacy network. Those legacy network customers would consequently not be able to access fixed number portability.”

BTC had informed URCA that the NGN transition, and ability to access fixed-line number portability, would not be 100 per cent complete until April 2014.

“The result of the foregoing is that while BTC was prepared to implement a temporary interim ‘fix’ for fixed number portability by the operator readiness network date of 31 August, 2013, that interim solution would not have allowed porting for all persons on the four islands identified by URCA,” the regulator said.

“Only lines already migrated to BTC’s NGN would be able to port. This would mean that approximately half of the BTC customers on those islands would not be able to port their numbers, and the full launch of fixed number portability to all relevant customers would not be feasible until April 2014 or later.”

Suggesting that Cable Bahamas’ concerns that BTC was engaging in anti-competitive behaviour might have some merit, URCA added: “BTC’s position was that the re-engineering of its legacy network to accommodate fixed number portability would be too costly, and would represent an unreasonable investment in outdated technology and equipment.

“URCA considered the delay to full fixed number portability launch, implicit in BTC’s insistence on the launch of fixed number portability on its NGN only, to be unsatisfactory from a fixed number portability launch perspective.

“URCA considers that fixed number portability is a key enabler of competition, and delay in fixed number portability has the potential effect of further entrenching the existing market power, which URCA noted would likely work in BTC’s favour.

“URCA was particularly influenced in this view by the fact that BTC’s migration to its NGN has been ongoing for several years, and has already experienced significant delays. URCA considered it imprudent, and not in the interests of the public or the development of competition, to allow BTC to tie the implementation of fixed number portability to its NGN migration.”

URCA’s findings back assertions by BISX-listed Cable Bahamas that it was BTC which was solely responsible for number portability’s delay. Indeed, the regulator deemed it was ready for September 3.

“In the circumstances, URCA has commenced an investigation into the extent to which BTC’s failure to be ready for fixed number portability” breached the sector’s regulations, the regulator added.

“URCA has commenced a separate investigation to address BTC’s issues regarding its NGN migration and its readiness for fixed number portability...... URCA considers that the correlation between BTC’s NGN migration and BTC’s fixed number portability readiness exists only as a result of a business decision by BTC, which URCA submits that BTC is free to make, subject to BTC’s compliance with its statutory and regulatory responsibilities.”

URCA said its probe into the changes necessary for BTC’s legacy network to accommodate fixed number portability had revealed requirements for “upgrades and reprogramming to its network infrastructure, and also to its billing and support systems, which would require the intervention of BTC’s network and software vendors, and a significant investment of its internal human resources in the process”.

While this would be a material cost to BTC, the regulator added: “URCA’s investigations indicated that were BTC to undertake the additional expenditure it would be able to achieve the full launch of fixed number portability to all customers on islands with more than one fixed voice service provider within 2013, up to six months earlier than the likely launch date if BTC was permitted to offer fixed number portability on its NGN network only.”

And, with Cable Bahamas and others having invested heavily in being ready for the September 3 implementation date, URCA added: “It was not open to BTC to unilaterally decide, in the face of a regulatory requirement to be fully ready for fixed number portability, that it would not re-engineer its legacy network to accommodate fixed number portability.”