45 minutes ago the Chief Justice made a dramatic ruling in smarts favor and against Telemedia. He ruled that BTL is required to provide SMART with all the telecom services regularly offered – including the E1 lines, re-install all equipment that has been removed, and grant SMART immediate access at all BTL sites and towers. In short things are- by court order to go back to just the way they were on August 23rd. before Telemedia was nationalized by the government. The decision came at the end of an entire day of arguments form Speednet’s lead attorney Eamon Courtenay and BTL’s Attorney Lois Young. It was very exhaustive considering that SPEEDNET was only asking for an injunction to restrain BTL from – in the words of Courtenay “abusing its position as the dominant provider and discriminating against other licensees.” Courtenay urged the court to issue an injunction to preserve the status quo. The air in the courtroom tense and crowded with 6 of BTL’s senior executives and 8 from SMART. But in the end, SMART’s bosses were the ones celebrating – and their attorney Eamon Courtenay said it is a victory for consumers.
Eamon Courtenay, Attorney for Smart
“It is a matter of 90,000 subscribers whose service was interrupted. I think the decision of the learned Chief Justice was very well reasoned, it was carefully crafted, and it is an important decision. First of all it clarifies the role of the court and PUC when there are disputes between service providers and the court established as we submitted that there is a role for the court with the PUC because the court has to grant an injunction even though somebody is being prejudiced. I think also the court underscored there are five agreements between the parties and that those agreements must be respected. If there is a dispute between the parties about those agreements, there is a process for resolving those disputes under those agreements and in the interim the parties should abide by the agreements and if they don’t the court will issue an order to enforce and force them to abide by their agreements. I think finally what the court really upheld is that a dominant service provider, in this case Telemedia whose infrastructure to enable Speednet to provide services to 90,000 consumers must be made available in a non-discriminatory manner and in a way that does not interfere with the service of the industry. In the meantime any disputes that are existing between the parties can be resolved but paramount is the service and the continued service to the people.”
Jules Vasquez,
“So now as it stands, everything reverts to where it was as at August 23rd?”
Eamon Courtenay,
“Well as you heard the Chief Justice granted all the reliefs that we sought so I am sure that the technical people at Telemedia and Speednet are going to sit down and return to the status quo as it existed before.”
Jose Sanchez, News 5
“So the towers that Smart was taken, will those be returned?”
Eamon Courtenay,
“That is a matter for Telemedia. The court’s order was very clear, everything that we asked for was granted by the Chief Justice. I am sure they are going to abide by the ruling of the Chief Justice.”
And on the other side of that is BTL’s attorney Lois Young. She argued that that matter was before the PUC where SPEEDNET had put it – and now the court has taken on the purview of the industry regulator. She said that it will be difficult to implement the decisions of the court because frankly BTL doesn’t know where to start.
Lois Young, Attorney for BTL
“I think it is wrong and I don’t see how his order can be enforced. Speednet trespassed on BTL’s property, put up an antenna, and Telemedia moved the antenna so that was not unlawfully removing Speednet’s property and other things.”
Jules Vasquez,
“But if you feel that it is misguided, you all will appeal it, seek immediate relief?”
Lois Young,
“Well I’ve already spoken to Miss Bevans about it and I am going to take a rest because remember this started Tuesday and today is what Thursday and this application was filed on Monday afternoon. By Tuesday morning the court had set it for hearing and I had to ask for time and it was set then for Thursday morning. So I am tired but I think my advice will be to the Chairman of the Board and to Mrs. Bevans to appeal.”
Jules Vasquez,
“It seems there is an end around the PUC’s role.”
Lois Young,
“That is the problem. How is this order going to be reconciled with the PUC’s jurisdictions and you have to remember Jules that it was Speednet who invoked the PUC’s jurisdiction. Mr. Torres says it in his affidavit, he says I am aware there is a procedure for dispute resolution and so we went to the PUC but basically they didn’t like what the PUC said so they’ve come to court and it’s a wrong procedure. If you don’t like what the PUC says you come to court about the PUC.”
Jules Vasquez,
“So the PUC will make a decision on December 23rd.”
Lois Young,
“Yes I don’t know how that is going to reconcile with what the court has done. So I think this is a matter that has to go to appeal.”
Jules Vasquez,
“So is the court arrogating unto itself powers that are reserved for the PUC?”
Lois Young,
“Well the Chief Justice says he’s not.”
Jules Vasquez,
“Just from an outsider’s perspective he seemed like a boat along the reef there in terms of going very carefully.”
Lois Young,
“He was choosing his words carefully but my argument to him was that it is a PUC matter, he doesn’t have the expertise to determine whose a dominant player, inviting the PUC to intervene is not going to cut it. Why should the PUC intervene on this, the court has taken onto itself a jurisdiction that the PUC in my view has.”
Jules Vasquez,
“In tactical terms how will this work?”
Karen Bevans, COO
“Well I actually I am waiting for a few minutes to discuss with our attorney as well because we ourselves have concerns about the results. We are in the process of preparing in conjunction with what the PUC mentioned and with their timeline and now this ruling today so I think we need urgent advice from the attorney as to how we proceed now.”
Jules Vasquez,
“But the order of the court is clear.”
Karen Bevans,
“I agree and we must comply with the ruling of the court but as to how we proceed I need the advice of the attorney.”
As Young indicated she will take some time off and then they will plan how to proceed. But in the interim – we’ll see how Telemedia will revert back to all prior arrangements with Speednet. This is an injunction until a full trial is heard.
