Cell C announced on Wednesday (10 October) that it had formally lodged a complaint with the Competition Commission against the dominant incumbent mobile operators‚ MTN and Vodacom‚ for anti-competitive conduct.
Cell C said the crux of the complaint related to the manner in which the dominant incumbents discriminated between their on-network and off-network effective prices‚ which had a dramatic and direct impact on the smaller operators' ability to acquire new customers.
"The two dominant incumbents discount their effective on-network prices substantially while charging a premium for their customers to call off-network. This amounts to discriminatory pricing and is without doubt anti-competitive when adopted by dominant operators‚" said Cell C's chief executive Alan Knott-Craig.
Cell C had been fiercely competing on all fronts with the goal of driving down prices for the consumer‚ which would also be beneficial for Cell C.
Differential pricing
"Customers that call off-network are being penalised often without them realising it. With number portability‚ customers don't always know if they are calling on-or off-networks anymore‚ so they don't actually know what rate they are paying‚" said Knott-Craig.
In many mobile markets around the world‚ regulators were opposed to differential on-network and off-network pricing and in some instances‚ dominant mobile network operators were facing stiff fines for this kind of discriminatory pricing‚ which locked in customers and prevented switching.
At the end of 2012‚ the French competition authorities imposed a €183.1m fine on Orange France and SFR for anti-competitive practices in the mobile telephony sector‚ specifically for discriminatory on-network pricing.
Papua New Guinea‚ in a bid to prevent market failure‚ introduced regulations preventing operators from offering discriminatory off-and on-network pricing in 2013.
Also in 2013‚ the Nigerian regulator called on MTN Nigeria to introduce flat rates (where on-network tariffs are the same as off-network tariffs) as 85% of MTN's traffic is on-net workin that country.
Cell C contended that all of these cases supported Cell C's position in its Competition Commission complaint.