Airtel goes to SC objecting to TRC’s new floor prices
Against consumer interest says telecom giant

July 17, 2010, 8:15 pm

Bharati Airtel Lanka (Private) Ltd., the newest entrant to Sri Lanka’s telecommunication field, has filed a fundamental rights action in the Supreme Court claiming that the Telecommunication Regulatory Commission’s new floor price scheme for mobile telephony is against the interest of the consumer and has pleaded that it be struck down by the court.

The Telecommunication Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka (TRC), Mr. Anusha Pelpita, its Director General and the Attorney General have been cited as respondents in the action filed by Paul Ratnayeke Associates, Attorneys-at-Law, who have requested that the matter by filed for listing this week to enable Mr. Romesh de Silva, PC, to support the application for interim relief.

Airtel, a global telecommunication giant ranked third among India’s 500 most valuable companies launched business here under a BOI agreement and has, according to its plaint, already invested approximately Rs. 20.2 billion in its business with commercial operations beginning in January 2009.

Urging that the floor rate – the lowest price at which the service can be offered - ``will only help the market leader and maintain the status quo at the expense of the consumer,’’ Airtel has said that unless a newcomer offers a clear price advantage to subscribers in addition to a better customer service, ``any newcomer will not be able to attract subscribers.’’

Under the revised floor rates communicated by the TRC, a minimum charge of Rs. 2 per minute off-net (that is through one operator to another, eg. from Dialog to Airtel) and Rs. 1 per minute on-net (eg. From Dialog to Dialog) is applicable where the tariff is on a per minute basis. For per second basis calls, the off-net rate will be Rs. 2.50 a minute and on-net Rs. 1.25. SMSs are chargeable at 25 cents per message off-net and 10 cents on-net.

TRC has however said that tariff plans already offered to customers even below the floor price can continue – eg. Mobitel’s Upahara giving senior citizen a cheap deal.

Airtel has pleaded that at the time it began business here, mobile phones had been in the market for about 20 years without a floor price ``and there was not even a hint or suggestion that a floor price would be introduced.’’

Airtel which said it had filed tariff plans below the floor price which TRC has rejected and/or withheld approval for, alleged in its pleadings that the regulator had allowed similar tariff plans of competitors.

The petitioner has pleaded TRC’s decision prevented a level playing field and was arbitrary, and/or capricious, and/or irrational, violative of the Constitution and of natural justice and prayed for leave to proceed as well as a direction that there will be no floor price imposed on tariffs implemented on mobile operators whether for outgoing or incoming calls.

Alternatively, any floor price imposed should be strictly adhered to include all tariff plans, whether imposed before or after the effective date of the floor price.