In 2011 Speednet, better known as, "Smart" sued the Public Utilities Commission. Speednet claimed that the PUC was overcharging them for the licensing of the 238 channels they use to provide phone calls, texts and data usage to their customers. The dispute is that the PUC was charging the telecommunications company almost $800,000 for the licensing of the channels when they should have actually been charged $1,400. So, why was there such a big difference in the charges? Well, according to Speednet's attorneys, the problem was with the usage of the word channel, which was defined ambiguously in the PUC's regulations.
The PUC was billing Speednet for the usage of voice channels, while Speednet insisted that they should be charged for radio frequency channels, which are cheaper.
Today the case, which has been appealed twice, came to a definitive close with the CCJ ruling in favor of Speednet. Via teleconference the Court issued a judgment saying when the regulation is unclear, their ruling should favour towards the person paying the fee over the governing body. Both parties broke the judgment down for us at court today...
Sen. Eamon Courtenay, SC - Attorney for Speednet
"Essentially the case was about how you move voice channels, actually voice messages from one point to the other. The dispute was over whether or not the word in the schedule, that was channel, referred to voice channel or radio channel or radio frequency channel. Speednet said it was radio frequency, the PUC insisted it was voice channel. It was unclear and we were maintaining from the very beginning that where a statue is unclear you must rule or lean in favor of the tax payer, the person who has to pay the fee. The CCJ agreed with us that the word channel used in the regulations was not clear. Once it is not clear they applied the principal that you must construe it in favor of the person who has to pay the fee. The difference in so far as the fee is concerned is that Speednet had to pay $792,500 per year. In this particular case they will end up paying $1,400 because the court ruled in favor of Speednet."
Reporter
"Is there any involvement of BTL in this particular matter?"
Fred Lumor - Attorney for PUC
"No, the BTL is not a party to it, but it will benefit from the decision. Meaning that until the regulations are amended by the PUC and things are clearly spelt out they will also pay $1400 licensing fee for channels through which calls are made, radios, broadcasting all those things they will pay $1400 as an annual fee. But I think that the outcome of the decision will give impetus to the PUC to amend the regulations and make it clear."
Ernesto Torres - CEO Speednet
"From our perspective we obviously we feel very pleased that we have been vindicated in that position and it also relates to the fact that the fees go back to what they're supposed to be and the amount of fees that we would have been charged had we lost the case, according to our finance group would have actually been 5 million. Because there were other assignments that were made and we refused to pay because of the court case that was pending so it's a big relief."
Daniel Ortiz
"Is that money invested back into the company for upgrading works and whatever matters you seem fit?"
Ernesto Torres - CEO Speednet
"What has happened in a case like that the funds that we have will receive back from the PUC as the CCJ ordered will in fact go back into the development of the telecommunications infrastructure that we currently are deploying."
Speednet originally filed the complaint against the PUC in 2011, and has since refused to pay the licensing fees until a final decision was made. Had they lost Speednet would have owed the PUC around $5 million. BTL was not a party to the case, but that company also benefits substantially. They use many more frequencies than Speednet.
Email
Print