2014/15 Annual Report

Annual Report 2014/15
17
Developments on the interchange front are largely positive. The rule that one cannot withdraw cash at tills has been abolished and this has lowered withdrawal
fees. Furthermore, the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) has become the new objective setter of interchange rates and has subsequently set new interchange
rates for ATM and card interchange through the Interchange Determination Project (IDP).
A concern is that, although restrictive card rules have been removed and access to the payment system for clearing non-bank participants has been implemented,
access to the National Payment System (NPS) remains limited. Access to the NPS as a non-bank clearing system has been limited to Diners Club and Postbank
only, and has thus not allowed non-banks to be a settlement participant. Non-banks have to partner with banks in order to settle payments. This reduces the nonbanks’
ability to be effective competitors and increases the cost of providing a service. It also limits the ability of innovative payment service providers, such as
mobile money, to implement services that increase access to financial services for poor people. Although access to the NPS is a concern, SARB and National
Treasury are working to address these issues, balancing healthy prudential and competitive needs.
7.5. Monitoring of conditions in Telecoms and Grain Storage and Trading sectors
In the year under review, the Commission monitored the implementation of the remedies it had imposed in its settlement agreements with Telkom and Senwes,
respectively. A summary of the cases and the status of the remedial action follows:
7.5.1. First settlement agreement with Telkom SA SOC Limited 8
On 13 July 2013, the Tribunal confirmed a settlement agreement concluded between the Commission and Telkom. This matter concerned five complaints, lodged
by Internet Solutions (Pty) Ltd (“IS”) 9 , the Internet Division of Multichoice Subscriber Services (Pty) Ltd (“MWEB”) 10 , Verizon (Pty) Ltd (“Verizon”) 11 , and Internet
Service Providers’ Association (“ISPA”) 12 , against Telkom SA SOC Limited (“Telkom”) 13 . In these complaints, it was alleged that Telkom has contravened section
8(a), 8(b), 8(c) and 8(d)(iii) of the Competition Act.
Pursuant thereto, Telkom has to date fully complied with all of the deadlines set out in the settlement agreement, including:
Concluding the Memorandum of Agreement with the Commission containing a cooperation and dispute resolution procedure;
Paying an administrative penalty of R200 million in three instalments;
Circulating a statement to employees summarising the contents of the settlement agreement;
Implementing 2014 price reductions; and
Submitting a Competition Law Compliance Programme.
8
CT Case No: 016865
9
IS’ complaint was lodged on 29 June 2005.
10
Mweb lodged two complaints, the first complaint on 29 June 2005, and the second one on
5 June 2007.
11
Verizon’s complaint was lodged on 2 April 2007.
12
ISPA’s complaint was lodged on 12 December 2005.
13
All of these complaints were consolidated in terms of Rule 17(2) of the Competition
Commission’s Rules.