By Lisa Hamilton

THE Public Utilities Commission (PUC), on Wednesday, accommodated the hearing of an application made by the Guyana Telephone & Telegraph Co. Limited (GTT) for a variation or review of an order which speaks to e-billing as opposed to paper-based billing.

The hearing ran extensively from 10:00 to 15:20 hours and saw the attendance of representatives from the PUC, GTT, the Guyana Consumer Association and GTT customer, Ramon Gaskin, whose complaint led to the order in question.

Though the PUC is yet to decide on the matter, it was underscored that the order remains intact unless a decision from the commission indicates otherwise.

The hearing comes as, on June 24, 2020, Vice President of Legal and Regulatory Affairs at GTT, Mark Reynolds wrote to chair of the PUC, Dela Britton, in request for a variation of Order No. 2 of 2019 made by the PUC.

The order speaks to GTT’s introduction of e-billing and PUC’s guidelines on how such should be introduced to consumers. It largely involves consideration of the consumers’ preference for receiving either e-billing or paper billing and ample public awareness and education if preference is indicated for the former.

In the letter from Reynolds to Britton requesting the order’s variation, it was explained that due to the COVID-19 pandemic and services of the Guyana Post Office (GPO) which have been affected, GTT requests the consideration of the commission to formally vary the aforementioned order and to clarify the wording of the order.

The specific wording in question states: “That unless notified otherwise by consumers, GTT shall dispatch to all business and residential consumers, paper bills which shall include the detailed Calling Party Pay call fables and overseas call details.”

Reynolds raised the issue that, in this order, the commission has not definitively stated to which services this order applies, whether it be GTT’s landline, DSL, mobile, or Gigabit Passive Optical Networks (GPON) services. He added that there is no clarity on whether GTT is mandated to provide detailed bills as opposed to summarised bills in some instances.

EQUAL TREATMENT

GTT also argued that other companies providing similar services as GTT such as the Guyana Power and Light (GPL), E-Networks and Guyana Water Incorporated (GWI) are also promoting the use of Information and communications technology (ICT) for statements and, in the case of E-Networks, no paper bills are produced ever. It lobbied for equal treatment, especially considering the circumstances of the pandemic.

GTT reminded the PUC that it has the powers to make the adjustment pursuant to Section 77 of the PUC Act which reads: “The Commission may suspend, review, vary or rescind any decision or order made by it and, where under this act a hearing is required before any decision or order is made, such decision or order shall not be suspended, varied or rescinded without giving the parties affected by the decision or order a reasonable opportunity of being heard.”

At the hearing, the PUC chair challenged GTT’s application when she pointed out that on the question of the dispatching of paper-based bills and e-bills, Order No. 2 of 2019 is clear that reference was only made to the GTT’s landline customers.

It was pointed out that order No. 2 of 2019 was made on the basis of GTT Customer, Ramon Gaskin, who was specifically named as a landline customer. In his complaint made in June 2019, Gaskin stated that the format of his tax invoice was changed by GTT without prior notification which resulted in the exclusion of substantive billing information.

After inquiring with GTT, Gaskin was informed that the omitted information would be made available online as GTT forges ahead with the use of more modern and efficient technology, but Gaskin stated further in his subsequent complaint to the PUC that he had no access to online facilities.

In reviewing his complaint, the PUC took into consideration that many other consumers might be similarly affected, determined that, in accordance to the PUC Act, No. 10 of 1999, such situation warranted a public hearing.

In its conclusion, though the PUC commended GTT for its efforts to advance a green economy, GTT was criticised for failure to provide prior notification and to launch an effective campaign which would notify the public of its plans to introduce a paperless facility.

COMMENDATION

It was decided that unless otherwise notified by customers, GTT must dispatch to all business and residential consumers detailed paper bills and that all consumers be clearly notified of the choice to opt out of paperless billing and the option to cancel online billing and resume paper billing.

It was also decided that GTT must ensure that its paperless billing platform experiences minimal latency; that customers are required to pay $300 for a special request of a bill and that public notices should be prominently placed notifying consumers of the new billing format.

Though Britton and Reynolds shared back-and-forth disagreements on the matter, the PUC Chair maintained that order No. 2 of 2019 is clear that on the question of paper bills or e-bills, reference was only made to landline customers based on Gaskin, the complainant, being a landline customer.

She urged Reynolds to state whether he was interested in revisiting his application on behalf of GTT for revision or whether the company was seeking to vitiate Order No.2 of 2019 entirely.

Britton stated: “Subsequent to the COVID-19 pandemic, GTT reached out and we indicated to GTT that, for this period, because of the constraints of the Post Office etcetera, we will allow email but we had noted in that letter — we even bolded the word — temporary. The emphasis was applied as it relates to temporary. At no time at all were we going to withdraw the substance of Order No.2 of 2019,” she said.

As such, Reynolds thanked the PUC Chair for the clarification on landlines being the central focus of the Order and also clarified that GTT was not seeking to vitiate the Order but merely to receive clarification on the wording of the Order which can be interpreted as ‘all services’ instead of just landlines. It was noted that the section of the Order can also be interpreted to mean that there is a mandatory requirement for detailed bills to be provided to consumers as opposed to a summary. In turn, Britton permitted an amendment to GTT’s Application.

In attendance at the hearing were PUC Commissioners Dr. Leyland Lucas, Verlyn Klass and Rajendra Bisessar, along with Secretary, Vidiahar Persaud. Representing GTT along with Reynolds were GTT Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Justin Nedd; Vice President of Customer Experience, Orson Ferguson; Director of International Regulatory, Government and Legal Affairs, Delreo Newman; Legal Officer Kadeem Davis; Paralegal, Tricia Rajkumar and others.

Representing the Guyana Consumer Association was its President, Patrick Dial and Adviser to the Association, Dr. Yog Mahdeo. Several technical questions on internet accessibility, surveys conducted by GTT, e-billing awareness and bill administration were posed by PUC Commissioners to Reynolds. Meanwhile, similar questions came from representatives of the Consumer Association.

However, at the end of the question segment, Reynolds emphasised that many of the questions have already been exhausted during the initial hearing based on the complaint made by Gaskin and were settled by the order. He iterated that GTT has not set out to overturn the order but to receive clarity and an alteration to parts of the order which can have multiple meaning.

He said that GTT also seeks consideration from the PUC for the need for the telephone and telegraph Company to meet its responsibility to remain updated with best international practices which speak to the incorporation of ICT and movement away from paper-based transactions.