Регулятор Южной Африки отозвал обвинения в сговоре у мобильных операторов

- For more financial news, go to News24 Business. Communications regulator Icasa has withdrawn its suggestion that there is a “pattern” suggesting possible collusion among South Africa’s mobile giants. It had not conducted an investigation into collusion and not made any such finding, it said on Friday, stressing that it was “committed to evidence-based, transparent and procedurally fair regulations”. Its statement comes in the wake of pushback following an update to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Communications and Digital Technologies earlier this week. On 11 August, senior Icasa officials appeared before the committee to report back on updated consumer protections regarding mobile data, voice minutes and SMS limits. The updated regulations – namely the End-User and Subscriber Service Charter Amendment Regulations (EUSSC) – are set to come into effect in January 2027. During this report back, Icasa councillor Catherine Mushi spoke of a “pattern that could suggest there is some level of collusion, because we are not sure why operators are affected equally by these rules”. She said: “Why do they offer products that look almost the same, that get affected by these rules the same way? We have not done studies, but this is just an observation that is concerning to us.” Icasa chair Mothibi Ramusi added: “The minute you see behaviour which seems to be saying there is collusion, it pushes not only us, but the Competition Commission [as well], to look at how the market reacts to some of the changes.” At the time, Vodacom denied any collusion. In its statement on Friday, Icasa said it had “received numerous requests for clarification”. “The Authority acknowledges the operators’ support towards the objective of the EUSSC to protect consumers; however, it also highlighted a significant alignment on the substantive issues under dispute. “During the briefing to the committee, the Authority raised a concern regarding the shared industry position. The term ‘collusion’ was used to refer to the Authority’s observation on what appeared to have been experienced by competing licensed operators, rather than as evidence of any coordinated or anti-competitive conduct.” However, it had not established evidence of collusion, it acknowledged. “Icasa has not conducted a market assessment or investigation that establishes collusion among the operators, and no such finding has been made by the Authority. Therefore, the use of the term ‘collusion’ in this instance is retracted.”