THE Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company Limited (GT&T) intends to appeal a decision, handed down on Friday by Justice B. S. Roy. The decision at reference rejects the Company’s petition in relation to a previous order issued by Justice Rishi Persaud, directing it to pay damages to local entrepreneur, James Samuels.

In a public missive issued yesterday, GT&T declared that Justice Persaud’s decision in the Samuels case will continue to be stayed for two weeks, while the appeal is filed, as provided for by Justice Roy’s decision.

The telephone company says, “There has been no change, at this time, in the status quo regarding this matter; which is that the Samuels decision from last year has been, and remains, stayed.”

The company maintains that nothing that occurred during Friday’s court hearing would permit any telecommunications operator in Guyana to begin providing service without a licence; is adamant that previous efforts by another operator to provide international calling services without a licence and in violation of PUC regulations resulted in an injunction, which remains in place today; and says it remains confident that the Guyana courts “will issue a correct ruling on the matter of its licence rights”.

The entrepreneur, Samuels had applied for, and was provided with, DSL Internet service by GT&T in 2006, and subsequently subscribed to a Voice Over Internet Protocol Service (VOIP) provided by the Vonage Company of the USA.   

Samuels had written the GT&T to inform them of his intention to utilise the VOIP service in Guyana; and that company had replied, advising him that, under the terms of his contract, he was prohibited from utilising DSL service for international telephone activities, or for international telephone bypass.
The company then blocked his Internet access, thereby disrupting the DSL service which was provided to him.

The GT&T contention is that disruption of the service accorded Samuels was justified, since he was unlawfully operating an unlicensed telecommunication service, in contravention of the provisions of the country’s Telecommunications law.

Samuels consequently instituted legal proceedings against the GT&T, seeking, among other things, a declaration that the GT&T action constituted a breach of the contract executed between himself and that company with respect to his use of VOIP equipment.

Justice Persaud had awarded monetary damages in favour of Samuels, and had further called the company an “unlawful monopoly”. (Gary Eleazar)