The Deputy ranking member on Parliament’s Communications Select Committee and New Patriotic Party Member of Parliament (MP) for Obuasi West, Kwaku Kwarteng, says the newly approved new Electronic Communications (Amendment) Bill by Parliament, will restrict the role of the controversial Interconnect Clearing House (ICH) project proposed by government to interconnect calls from the various telecommunication companies in the country, as well as monitor revenue accruing from the sector.
[contextly_sidebar id=”BZA89h8gb0nxkBAoS88WbbXwvBKKvKRr”]He explained that the new law does not restrict the operators from doing business with the ICH option provided by government, and that they could come together, form an ICH and seek license from the regulator.
In January 2015, the National Communication Authority (NCA) appointed Afriwave Telecoms Ltd, to set up and operate the ICH on government’s behalf taking over from Subah Info Solutions.
Angered by the processes adopted by government to initiate the deal, Kwaku Kwarteng, together with Mr Elijah Adansi-Bonah, the Research Director of Development Data (a policy research organisation) sued the NCA over the matter.
The Interconnect Clearing House (ICH) is an operator government is setting up to connect international calls and also interconnect calls between mobile networks on behalf of telecommunications companies (TELCOs) in Ghana.
Currently, the Telcos have developed mutual arrangements and infrastructure for interconnecting calls, however under the new arrangement, government is asking the telcos to abandon their interconnect infrastructure and route their calls through the ICH.
The plaintiffs had prayed the court to declare government’s move as “unlawful and unnecessary.”
A statement issued by the MP noted that “the ICH allowed by the new law is substantially different from the ICH the Ministry of Communications wanted, and also, substantially different from the ICH being challenged in court.
“The new ICH regime is obviously an improved one. Beyond the transition period, the network operators can connect to any ICH of their choice. Indeed, the law does not forbid the operators themselves from coming together, forming an ICH and seeking licence from the regulator,” the statement added.
Below is Kwaku Kwarteng’s full statement:
THE INTERCONNECT CLEARING HOUSE (ICH)
… according to the new law
1. Section 20 of the Electronic Communications Act 2008, (Act 775) required all mobile network operators (MNOs) to make arrangement for interconnection with each and every other operator so that subscribers of any network can communicate with those of any other network. The law called it peer-to-peer interconnection. The MNOs invested in interconnection infrastructure and were interconnecting for themselves (peer-to-peer).
2. In November 2014, the Ministry of Communications announced that it was going to abolish the peer-to-peer interconnection arrangements and appoint an Interconnect Clearing House (ICH) to interconnect all communications for the MNOs. The ICH was also to take over the revenue monitoring that the Ghana Revenue Authority had contracted Subah Info Solutions to do.
3. In January 2015, the National Communications Authority (NCA) appointed Afriwave Telecoms Ltd to setup and operate the ICH as a monopoly. All operators were instructed to mandatorily allow their systems to connect with the ICH. In summary, Afriwave was to setup and operate an ICH as a monopoly and also, to take over revenue monitoring in the telecoms sector.
4. In March 2016, three applicants sued the NCA and Afriwave, challenging the lawfulness and constitutionality of the ICH. This made it impossible for the ICH to take off as planned.
5. In January 2016, the Ministry of Communications therefore brought the Electronic Communications (Amendment) Bill to Parliament to replace the peer-to-peer interconnection arrangement with the ICH. In the memorandum to the bill, it was stated that:
“The proposed amendment in the Bill replaces the obligation of a network operator to provide interconnection of its electronic communications network with the network of another operator under the peer-to-peer system in section 20 (1) of Act 775. A network operator by virtue of the amendment is mandated to provide interconnection of its electronic communication, service or application through the interconnect Clearing House.”
6. On 17th March 2016, Parliament made two significant and far-reaching changes to the amendment before passing it into law. They were as follows:
i. Parliament removed the monopoly and allowed for multiple ICHs.
ii. No ICH was to be permitted to provide revenue assurance or revenue monitoring services, since every ICH was going to be a telecommunications service provider expected to pay communication services tax to government.
7 So, there is now a new law, Electronic Communications (Amendment) Act, 2016 (Act 910) supporting the setting up of ICHs, but the ICH allowed by the new law is substantially different from the ICH the Ministry of Communications wanted, and also, substantially different from the ICH being challenged in court.
8. Indeed, the question even arises whether all the things done in respect of the monopolistic and revenue-monitoring ICH (that is, the tender process to select the monopolistic ICH, the directives to operators to work with that ICH, etc) before Act 910 came into force were lawful at the time and are lawful now. But, that is a discussion for another day.
9. The new ICH regime is obviously an improved one. Beyond the transition period, the network operators can connect to any ICH of their choosing. Indeed, the law does not forbid the operators themselves from coming together, forming an ICH and seeking licence from the regulator.
10. It is also worthy of note that the new law defines an ICH as follows:
A centralised system to link public electronic communications networks and services to allow the users of one public electronic communications service to communicate with users of another public electronic communications service.
Thus the law has restricted the scope of what an ICH can do to just interconnection and nothing else.
11. It would therefore be fair on Afriwave that, given the reduced scope of the ICH, the NCA refunds part of the GH¢4 million provisional license fee Afriwave paid under the old monopolistic ICH regime; that is, if Afriwave still intends to be licensed as an ICH operator under the new regime.
12. Finally, it is likely the Ghana Revenue Authority will continue with its revenue monitoring contract with Subah Info Solutions. This is because the GRA has on many occasions expressed satisfaction with the performance of Subah in the contract. GRA had however served notice earlier about its intention to terminate the contract and pay compensation from the public purse to Subah in order to pave way for the monopolistic and revenue-monitoring ICH. But now, no ICH can monitor revenue because it would be against the law.
13. In all this however, the question remains whether our telecoms sector is better off or worse off with an ICH regime. That is something we will know in due course.
Signed
Kwaku Kwarteng (MP)
(Deputy Ranking, Communications Select Committee of Parliament)
–
By: Godwin A. Allotey/citifmonline.com/Ghana
Follow @AlloteyGodwin