When the news broke last night the Andrew Holness signed some agreement to remove the stipulation for Digicel to operate the Claro network separately, there seemed to be immediate shock and disbelief. I think the biggest realization though, was that this would be ‘it’ for consumers. I think most persons were just shocked that what they feared was happening: a monopoly.
As the news unfolds however, the circumstances are becoming much more clear. It is now clear for instance that, the then opposition telecommunications spokesman, Phillip Paulwell, agreed with the move, that Andrew Holness really inherited an appeal intended for Mr. Golding, and that in short, there seemed to be little (or so they say), that could be done, than approving the merger.
As I maintain. This deal should not have been allowed.
Here are some questions that I had as soon as information about this deal surfaced. Of course they will be answered over time.
- Wasn’t Andrew Holness apart of the same government that approved the initial deal, so why change and approve something else when appointed as prime minister? This one has already been answered.
- Didn’t Digicel agree to initial terms? Wouldn’t they have thought about the feasibility of it? Wouldn’t they have had to demonstrate that it was feasible to operate both networks?
- Why are there reports of reduced service on the Claro network even before the announced / approved shutdown date?
- Why weren’t the regulators aware of a change in the agreement? What kind of consultation was done to change to terms of the deal? How is the OUR ‘discovering’ that changes were made to the take over deal?
- Who does Digicel have to consult before making a decision to shut down the Claro network? Why are they announcing a shutdown date and are now being summoned to meetings?
What do you think about this deal and new information being surfaced?