[ad_1]
the National Communications Authority (NCA) has established new rules for the mobile network giant, MTN Ghana, following the declaration as Significant Market Power (SMP).
The new rules, according to the NCA, aim to ensure a level playing field for all network operators within the industry.
MTN Ghana currently controls over 70% of the mobile phone industry in the country.
The new rules are below:
Asymmetric interconnection rate of 30%
Over the next two years, MTN Ghana will receive 30% less traffic from other mobile operators to its network. In other words, the charges that other mobile operators will have to pay to MTN per minute for voice calls or text messages from their subscribers to those of MTN would be 30% less than the rate that MTN would be expected to pay for traffic to other networks.
Price ceilings
MTN Ghana will also have restrictions on pricing its voice, data, SMS and mobile money services below their set default rate as part of a promotion, unless approved by the NCA.
MTN Ghana is expected to submit all plans or pricing packages to the NCA for approval before they can be implemented.
Spreads within the network outside the network
MTN Ghana is expected to charge the same for calls and SMS between MTN to MTN communication and MTN to other networks.
Calls to the same networks are often cheaper than to other networks, but under the new law, MTN Ghana will be forced to charge the same price.
National roaming
MTN Ghana is also expected to open its networks in a way that allows other networks to access and connect in areas where the other networks may not have coverage / reception. However, MTN Ghana may agree to a roaming fee with the networks.
So if a Vodafone customer, for example, goes to an area where there is no Vodafone coverage, but there is MTN coverage, MTN is required to allow the Vodafone customer to access your network and communicate via voice and data.
The new rules are not currently being applied, as MTN Ghana has taken the case to the Supreme Court, seeking judicial review and insisting that there was a violation of procedural fairness.
