Dispute between Tele2 and PTC over consumption of power in respect of the RUO
By determination of 16 April 2008, approval was given to the final decision regarding the process of administrative settlement of the dispute between PT Comunicações, S.A. and Telemilénio - Telecomunicações, Sociedade unipessoal, Lda., related to the non-payment of invoices relating to the consumption of power in the context of access to the local loop (RUO). In this respect ICP-ANACOM decided the following:
- To deny the request presented by PTC to settle this dispute, due to the fact that the maximum period allowed before seeking the intervention of the Regulator, as set out in paragraph 2 of article 10 of the same law, had elapsed;
-
To clarify that point 4.2.3 b) of annex 14 of the RUO defines the prices payable by other licensed operators in exchange for the co-installation services provided by PTC, irrespective of the time of the installation and connection of equipment. By agreement, the parties may stipulate that the sums in respect of the consumption of energy, calculated according to the formula set forth in the RUO, shall be due from a time after the commencement of the provision of the co-installation service. In such case, the parties shall define the conditions necessary for the functioning of the agreement, specifically in so far as they allow PTC to know the effective date following which such sums may be legitimately charged.
Dispute between Sonaecom and PTC on the payment of compensation for failure to meet the levels of quality of service established in the RUO
On June 4, 2008, this Authority decided, with respect to the administrative settlement proceedings initiated by Sonaecom with the objective of obtaining the payment of compensation by PTC for failure to comply with the levels of quality of service established in the reference unbundling offer (RUO), to respond to the requests for verification of eligibility in 2006.
The final decision given in this case considered and rejected the arguments and grounds set out in the request for dispute settlement and dismissed the application for payment of compensation for failure to comply with the maximum response periods established as objectives of quality of service of the RUO, as well as the claimed interest.
Dispute between Sonaecom and PTC on the payment of compensation for failure to comply with the levels of quality of service established in the RUO and in the LLRO
Following a request submitted by Sonaecom seeking the intervention of the regulator to settle the dispute with PT Comunicações, S.A, on the payment of compensation for failure, in 2006, to comply with the levels of quality of service and with respect to the time limits applicable to the restoration of service (repair of faults), established in the Reference Unbundling Offer (RUO) and in the leased lines reference offer (LLRO), on 30 April 2008, ICP-ANACOM adopted a draft decision which rejected the request in which declaration was made of the obligation of PTC to pay Sonaecom the amount claimed as compensation for non-compliance, as well as the claim for interest and due diligence required by the Sonaecom, considering that these were neither useful nor necessary for the clarification of the facts relevant to the decision.
''30'' Numbering range - VoIP
Between July and September 2008, ICP-ANACOM received several communications from Sonaecom, requesting the intervention of the regulator with respect to the request of this operator, directed at PTC and TMN - Telecomunicações Móveis Nacionais, S.A., (TMN) on opening the "30" numbering range - nomadic VoIP to route calls over their networks, for which there was a lack of consensus on the price of termination practiced by Sonaecom.
In order to verify compliance with the obligation to negotiate interconnection which is incumbent on the operators and provides for the possible intervention of this Authority, in December 2008, information was requested from PTC and Sonaecom on the state of negotiations on this agreement, including proposals exchanged between the parties regarding the price of termination proposed by Sonaecom and counter-proposed by PTC and TMN.
