Convergence Bill: deliberations

Meeting report

COMMUNICATIONS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
6 September 2005
CONVERGENCE BILL: DELIBERATIONS

Chairperson:

Department PowerPoint presentation
ANC Proposed Amendments on Chapter 1
ANC Amendments to Clauses 2 & 3 (up to Clause 9)
ANC proposed amendments: Chapters 3 (Clause 10 -19)
ANC Proposed Amendments to Chapter 4: Clauses 20-29
ANC proposed amendments: Chapters 5 - 8
ANC Proposed Amendments of Chapters 9 to 12 (as of 7 September)
ANC Proposed Amendments to Chapter 12 - 14 (as of 9 September)
ANC Proposed Amendments to Chapter 15: Transitional provisions
Radio Frequency Spectrum (see Appendix)
Convergence Bill [B9-2005]

SUMMARY
The Committee discussed Chapters 5 to 8 of the Convergence Bill and the proposed ANC amendments. Members considered the inclusion of a paragraph (f) under Clause 30(2), as had been proposed by Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory (HartRAO) and Square Kilometre Array telescope (SKA) officials. There was agreement that the terminology in the Convergence Bill had to be aligned with International Telecommunications Union (ITU) standards.

The DA reiterated that the Convergence Bill had to be subject to procedural requirements. They expressed concern about the implications of Clause 42(9), the term "governmental entities or organisation" in terms of Clause 34(16), and recommended substituting "financially feasible" for "economically feasible" in Clause 37(3) (a). The DA further suggested considering the establishment of a Joint Spectrum Liaison Committee with respect to the radio frequency plan.

The Department also briefed the Committee on Chapter 5 of the Convergence Bill, clarifying the terms ‘allotment’, ‘allocation’ and ‘assignment’ of radio frequency spectrums, and the role of the Minister and the Authority.

MINUTES

Chapter 5: Radio frequency spectrum

Department briefing
Ms M Matlala, Senior Manager: Telecommunications Policy, briefed the Committee on Chapter 5 of the Convergence Bill, clarifying the terms ‘allotment’, ‘allocation’ and ‘assignment’ of radio frequency spectrum. The Minister represented the Republic before the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in respect to the international allotment of radio frequency spectrum and international coordination. The Minister would approve the national radio frequency plan developed by the Authority, which allocated specific frequency bands for use by different services based on ITU allotment. The Authority assigned radio frequencies in accordance with the national radio frequency plan for the use by specific licensees within the Republic.

Clause 30: Control of radio frequency spectrum
Ms M Smuts (DA) questioned the reference to the International Telecommunications Union’s (ITU) table of frequency allocations, taking into account that 'allotment' was the right term for the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) practice. The Committee had to consider the ITU definitions with respect to radio frequency spectrum.

The Chairperson agreed that an agreement was needed on the terminology. Drafters had to study the ITU terminology carefully, and align the relevant terms in the Bill accordingly.

Ms Smuts asked whether the proposed insertion in Clause 30(2) (b) that read "frequency swapping, leasing and other arrangements" should rather be added at the end of the sentence. Mr G Oliphant (ANC) replied that they had already reworded Clause 30(2) (b) in the way she had suggested.

Ms Smuts recommended inserting a Clause 30(2) (f) that read: "give due regard to radio frequency spectrum allocated to radio astronomy by the ITU and the preservation of the radio environment for radio astronomy observations around designated observation sites". Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory (HartRAO) and Square Kilometre Array telescope (SKA) officials had proposed this inclusion. A direct reference to radio quiet zones was essential for the SKA. She felt that the Committee should comply with their request.

Mr K Khumalo (ANC) commented that in Clause 30(1), "except as provided for in Section 34" should be added at the end of the sentence. The impact of SKA and radio quiet zones on residents had to be considered. The needs of the SKA had to be balanced against the public interest. Radio frequency spectrum included radio astronomy and it was thus not necessary to specify the latter.

Ms Smuts suggested taking Mr Khumalo’s concern into account in the following clause which dealt with licensing.

Mr J Mjwara, Department Deputy Director-General: Multi-Media, agreed to insert the first part of the proposed Clause 30(2) (f), but was opposed to the second part that gave due regard to the preservation of the radio environment for radio astronomy observations around designated observation sites. The latter should instead be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, as it was not known where the radio quite zones would be established. He suggested including radio astronomy and other scientists using the spectrum under Clause 34.

Mr Khumalo said that in Clause 30(3), the word "minimised" should be substituted for "limited or reduced". In Clause 30(4), "to licensed services" had to be inserted after "interference". The ANC proposed to delete Clause 30(5).

Clause 31: Radio frequency spectrum licence
Mr Khumalo commented that a new Clause 31(3) would be inserted. As a consequence, the numbering of the following clauses would change. Clause 31(4) (c) was amended and read "to effect the migration of licensees in accordance with any revised radio frequency plan or the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting". In Clause 31(5), "user" was substituted for "subscriber", and "or a recipient of a service subject to a licence exemption" added at the end of the phrase. In Clause 31(6), "categories" was replaced for "types". In Clause 31(6), "including but not limited to radio frequency spectrum allocated for the use by radio astronomy and other scientific uses of radio frequency spectrum that have been coordinated and agreed by the Authority" was added at the end of the sentence.

Ms Smuts remarked that the new Clause 31(3) addressed her concern regarding the lack of a provision in the Bill that dealt directly with licensing and the application for spectrum. The procedure regarding amendments and renewal of radio frequency licences should be written into the Bill, similar as in the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) Act. She asked whether the Committee had included the procedure in Chapter 3 of the Bill. Clauses 31(3) (d) and (e) had to be subject to procedural requirements. She suggested either including the procedure in the Bill, or adding "subject to procedure to be prescribed by the Authority if requested by the licensee concerned" to these clauses. The adverse effect of arrangements between the Regulator and the licensee on other licensees had to be taken into account.

She then queried whether they should include a provision that took into account equitability with respect to the amendment of a radio frequency spectrum licence. She asked whether they should include a minimum requirement for equitability in giving people spectrum.

Ms Smuts further queried what "force majeure" meant in Clause 31(4) (b).

The Chairperson said that the Committee had agreed that arrangements between the Regulator and the licensee should not prejudice competitors or militate against the radio frequency plan.

Mr Khumalo asked for legal advice on the term "force majeure" in clause 31(4) (b), pointing out that the latter had to be read in conjuncture with 31(4) (c).

Mr Mjwara said that the procedure had been included in Clause 10 of Chapter 3 that dealt with the amendment of individual licences. The radio frequency spectrum licence was an individual licence. He agreed that they had to address the issue of prescribing procedures and criteria for awarding and amending licenses under Clause 31(3). He explained that "force majeure" referred to national disasters.

Clause 32: Control of possession of radio apparatus
Mr Khumalo said that the amended Clause 32(1) would read as follows: "No person may possess any radio apparatus unless he or she is in possession of a radio frequency spectrum licence granted in terms of this section or is exempted as prescribed pursuant to section 31(5)". Clause 32(2) was deleted. In Clause 32(5), "at the cost of the contravening party" was inserted after "Authority". In Clause 32(2) (a), the reference to "subsection (1) or (4)" was substituted for "section (31)". Clause 32(2) (b) would read "the matter is dealt with by a court of law".

Clause 33: Frequency co-ordination
Mr Khumalo remarked that there would be a new Clause 33(2) that would read as follows: "Where radio frequency spectrum licensees are unable or unwilling to co-ordinate in good faith in terms of subsection (1), the Authority must intervene and resolve the dispute".

Mr Oliphant noted that Clauses 33(2) and 33(3) should refer to subsection (2), and not to subsection (1).

Clause 34: Radio frequency plan
Mr Khumalo said that new Clauses 34(1), (2), and (3) would be inserted. Clause 34(1) would read as follows: "The Minister, in the exercise of her functions, represents the Republic in international fora, including the ITU, in respect to the international allotment of radio frequency spectrum and the international coordination of radio frequency spectrum usage, in accordance with international treaties, multinational and bilateral agreements entered into by the Republic".

The new Clause 34(2) would read as follows: "The Minister must approve the national radio frequency plan developed by the Authority which shall set out the specific frequency bands allocated for use by particular services, taking into account the radio frequency spectrum bands allocated to the security services".

Finally, the inserted Clause 34(3) would read: "The Authority must assign radio frequencies consistent with the national radio frequency plan for the use of radio frequency spectrum licence holders and other services that may be provided pursuant to a licence exemption".

The previous Clause 34(1) would become 34(4), and the numbering of the following clauses would change accordingly. In Clauses 34(4), (5), (6), (7), (11) and (16), the word "national" was inserted before "radio frequency plan" in order to provide clarity. In Clause 34(4), "or make appropriate modification to any existing radio frequency plan to bring it into conformation with this Act" would be added at the end of the sentence. In Clause 34(5), "at least once every 12 months" was deleted.

Clause 34(6) (a) would read: "designate the radio frequency bands to be used for particular services", while "or other inability to make use of the radio frequency spectrum assigned to them" was deleted in subclause (d). In subclause (e), the word "flexibility" was inserted after "for", and the word "digital" before "technologies" deleted.

The amended Clause 34(7) (a) would read as follows: "Take into account the ITU’s international spectrum allotments for radio frequency spectrum use, in so far as ITU allotments have been adopted or agreed upon by the Republic, and giving due regard to the reports of experts in the field of spectrum or radio frequency planning and to internationally accepted methods for preparing such plans".

In Clause 34(7)(c) (ii), "security services and the allocation of radio frequency spectrum to one or more bands that collectively comprise the radio frequency band" was deleted. Clause 34(9), (10) and (13) referred to subclause (8) and not (5). In Clause 34(10), "and implementation of any migration plan identified therein" was deleted, and in Clause 34(11) "and specify a schedule for the undertaking such consultation with the Authority leading to approval of the radio frequency plan" had been deleted. Clause 34(15) should refer to subclauses (6) to (14). In Clauses 34(16), (17)(a) and (17)(b), the term "radio frequency bands" was consistently used instead of "radio frequency spectrum". In Clause 34(16), "and may migrate the users after consultation with the Ministers of Communication and Defence" was added at the end of the sentence.

The amended Clause 34(17) (b) would read as follows: "The Minister must, in terms of paragraph (a), retain primary responsibility over such radio frequency bands allocated for security services".

Mr R Mohlaloga (ANC) remarked that in the new Clause 34(6) (d) – the previous Clause 34(3) (d) – the last part after "interference" should be deleted, as the inability to make use of the radio frequency spectrum was dealt with under Clause 34(6) (b).

Mr Oliphant pointed out that the clarified terms for allotment, allocation and assignment as outlined by the Department had been taken into account. This draft was an improved version of the initial Bill.

The Chairperson commented that the terminology had to be aligned with ITU standards.

Ms Smuts agreed that the amended draft was a vast improvement. She was pleased that the word "national" had been inserted before "radio frequency plan". She queried whether "allotment" had to be substituted for "allocation" in Clause 34(1). In the latter, it should further read "in respect of" instead of "in respect to". In Clause 34(4), "conformity" would probably be the appropriate word. She expressed concern about deleting the word "digital" in Clause 34(6) (e).

She further said that the consultation with the Minister as outlined in Clause 34(7) (c) was an interesting approach. The Committee should consider setting up a Joint Spectrum Liaison Committee, similar to the United States and the United Kingdom. The Motorola submission entailed the argument that the involvement of the Minister in the allocation process would have an adverse effect. She suggested amending Clause 34(7) to "consult with the Minister and the Joint Spectrum Liaison Committee", and inserting the word "required" before "the Minister" in Clause 34(7)(c) (i).

Ms Smuts wondered whether "governmental entities or organisations" should be substituted for "security services" in Clause 34(16) in order to provide consistency. Governmental entities that were commercially active in this field were a reason for concern. It would be unfair to commercial competitors if these entities were dealt with separately.

Mr Mjwara replied that the intention was to go beyond security services. He referred to Clause 34(7)(c) (ii) in this regard.

Mr Oliphant concurred with Mr Mjwara that the use of "governmental entities" was appropriate in Clause 34(16). He requested Ms Smuts to submit a proposal on the Joint Spectrum Liaison Committee; however felt that the latter was not necessary in South Africa. He asked what the reasons were for the Joint Spectrum Liaison Committee in the United States and in the United Kingdom.

Ms Smuts reminded Members that they had received submissions that referred to the Joint Spectrum Liaison Committee.

Ms L Shope-Mafole, Director-General: Communications, suggested inserting "providing strategic or security services" after "governmental entities or organisations" in Clause 34(16). This would take into account that government sometimes asked private companies to provide security or strategic services.

Ms Smuts asked whether there was a separate assignment plan or only an allocation plan.

Ms Shope-Mafole explained that normally, there was a frequency plan for the country. The latter had to comply with international regulations. Within the frequency plan, particular bands could be used for security services.

Mr Khumalo expressed doubt whether a Joint Spectrum Liaison Committee could be established in South Africa.

Chapter 6: Technical equipment and standards

Clause 35: Approval of type
Mr Oliphant proposed to insert "used or to be used" after "apparatus" in Clause 35(1), and "the provision of" after "with". Additionally, "that type of communications" was substituted for "such". The amendment of Clause 35(2) (a) took into account the concern raised by Motorola regarding specifications. Clause 35(2) (b) would read "circumstances under which the use of equipment does not require approval".

Clause 36: Technical standards for equipment and communication facilities
Mr Oliphant said that in Clause 36(1), there would be an additional subclause (c) which read "promotion of interoperability". In Clause 36(3) (c), "by a competent national body" was inserted after the word "substituted".

Chapter 7: Interconnection

Clause 37: Obligation to interconnect
Mr Mohlaloga proposed the ANC amendments to Clauses 37(1), (2), (4) and (5). The ANC recommended deleting Clause 37(6). Interconnection agreements should not be exclusionary or discriminatory.

Ms Smuts remarked that broadcasters would not have to be included as they did not interconnect. She thus suggested referring to "communication services" instead. She proposed to substitute "financially feasible" for "economically feasible" in Clause 37(3) (a).

Mr Oliphant explained that broadcasting could not be excluded.

Mr P Mashile, ICASA Chairperson, noted that fibre optic connections would have to be taken into consideration in this regard. Ms Smuts replied that fibre optic connections would, however, require network licenses.

Mr Khumalo concurred with Ms Smuts, explaining that digital audio and video broadcasting normally referred to network and not broadcasting services.

Mr Mjwara commented that when a requested interconnection was technically not feasible, it would be excluded.

Ms Smuts reiterated that "financially feasible" should be substituted for "economically feasible". This had also been the argument from the industry.

Mr Khumalo remarked that "financial feasibility" was more appropriate as the term "economic feasibility" was too broad.

Mr Mohlaloga commented that big players might play an unfair game from a financial point of view. It was thus more appropriate to talk of "financial feasibility". The Authority had to examine whether the agreement or the dispute around an agreement made sense financially.

Clause 38: Interconnection agreements
Mr Mohlaloga proposed to insert a new Clause 38(1) which would read as follows: "Interconnection regulations and interconnection agreement principles must provide for a framework which may include a reference interconnection offer containing model terms and conditions for interconnection". As a consequence, the numbering of the following clauses would change.

In Clause 38(3), "but are not limited to" was inserted after the word "include". Clause 38(3)(a) (i) would read "the negotiation of interconnection agreement". In Clause 38(3) (b), the word "performance" was inserted after "quality", and in Clause 38(3) (d), "communications" should be added before the word "facilities". In Clause 38(3) (h), "support systems" was inserted before the word "calling". Further, a new subclause was inserted under Clause 38(3) that read "the access and security arrangements". In Clause 38(3) (i), "network" was substituted for "networks and provision of services". In Clause 38(3) (j), "communications network service" was deleted twice, and instead "for an individual licence" inserted at the end of the sentence. A new Clause 38(3) (l) was added that read "the manner in which interconnection services are to be unbundled and made separately available by licensees".

The amended Clause 38(4) would read as follows: "Where the regulations require negotiations with an applicant as contemplated in subsection (3)(k), references in this Chapter to a licensee seeking to interconnect must be considered to include a reference to an applicant". As a consequence, the previous Clause 38(4) (a) became superfluous. Clause 38(4) (b) had been amended. The issue of significant market power would be dealt with under Chapter 10.

A new Clause 38(6) would be added that would read as follows: "Where a licensee is exempt from the obligation to interconnect under subsection (5), and such exempted licensee enters into an interconnection agreement with another exempted licensee or a person providing services pursuant to a licence exemption, section 37(6) and 39(3) and (4) do not apply to any such interconnection".

Ms Smuts asked what the new Clause 38(3) (l) meant that read "the manner in which interconnection services are to be unbundled and made separately available by licensees". She queried what the implications were of this clause. The present formulation of Clause 38(3) (l) seemed quite wide.

Mr Khumalo remarked that Clause 38(3) (l) should not be read separately, but in conjuncture with Clause 38(3). He reiterated that the issue of significant market power would be dealt with in Chapter 10.

Mr Oliphant commented that Ms Smuts’ concerns regarding the procedure would be addressed in Chapter 10. He suggested that Members would come back to Clause 38 after having concluded Chapter 10.

Ms Shope-Mafole stressed that there was a new Clause 41(1) that read as follows: "The Authority may prescribe regulations establishing a framework of wholesale interconnection rates to be charged for interconnection services of specified types of interconnection and associated interconnection services in accordance with and subject to Chapter 10". This clause referred to different types of services. An agreement could consist of bundled or unbundled services. She suggested amending Clause 38(3) (l) to "in a manner in which interconnection services are to be bundled or unbundled". Confusion could be avoided if the Bill referred to unbundled and bundled services.

Ms Smuts wondered whether that meant that this was not an economic or competition issue, but a way of separating services. The matter was more technical than she had thought. Ms Shope-Mafole reassured her that the issue was subject to Chapter 10.

Clause 39: Filing of interconnection disputes
Mr Mohlaloga said that in Clause 39(1) (b), "notifies the parties to the interconnection agreement" would be substituted for "provides the parties with written notice of non-compliance". He proposed to delete Clause 39(3). In Clause 39(4), "and the rates and charges contained in such agreement" was added at the end of the sentence. In Clause 39(5), "may" should be substituted for "must".

Clause 40: Notification of interconnection disputes
Mr Mohlaloga recommended adding "that has been filed with the Authority" after "agreement".

The Chairperson asked who would refer a complaint to the Compliance and Complaints Committee.

Mr Mashile explained that complaints would be referred to the Authority, and the latter would then delegate it to the Compliance and Complaints Committee. Hearings seeking for resolution would then take place.

Mr Oliphant felt that the procedure for lodging a complaint needed to be clarified. No appeal mechanism was provided for in Clause 40(3). He wondered whether the Authority should have the final say in resolving disputes. The Committee had to consider this issue.

Ms Smuts stressed that the ICASA Amendment Act had to be considered for this discussion. Appeal mechanisms were crucial. Hence, the more mechanisms were included in the Bill, the better.

The Chairperson agreed that the ICASA Amendment Act was needed. The following questions had to be considered: How independent was the Complaints and Compliance Commission from the Authority? Could complaints be referred directly to the Complaints and Compliance Commission?

Mr Khumalo said that ICASA would not interfere with decisions taken by the Complaints and Compliance Committee.

Mr Mjwara remarked that the intention was to provide resolutions on an expedited basis.

Clause 41: Interconnection pricing principles
Mr Mohlaloga proposed to delete Clauses 41(1) (2) and (3), as these issues were dealt with under Chapter 10. The new Clause 41(1) would read as follows: "The Authority may prescribe regulations establishing a framework of wholesale interconnection rates to be charged for interconnection services of specified types of interconnection and associated interconnection services in accordance with and subject to Chapter 10".

Ms Smuts felt that the ANC’s proposals had not sufficiently taken into account criteria and principles.

Chapter 8: Communications facilities leasing

Clause 42: Obligation to lease communications facilities
Mr Mohlaloga recommended deleting Clause 42(1). The new Clause 42(1) would read as follows: "Subject to subsection 43(5) and (6), a communications service licensee must, on request, lease communications facilities to any other person licensed in terms of this Act and persons providing services pursuant to a licence exemption in accordance with the terms and conditions of a communications facilities leasing agreement entered into between the parties the parties, unless the Authority considers such request to be unreasonable".

The previous Clause 42(2) was substituted for the following clause: "Where the reasonableness of any request to lease communications facilities is disputed, the party requesting to lease such communications facilities may notify the Authority in accordance with the regulations prescribed pursuant to section 43, and the Authority must within 14 days of receiving the request or such longer period as is reasonably necessary in the circumstances determine the reasonableness of the request".

Clause 42(3) was deleted.

The amended Clause 42(4) read as follows: "For the purposes of determining subsection (1), a request is reasonable where the Authority determines that the requested lease of communications facilities is technically and financially feasible and will promote efficient use of communication network services".

In Clause 42(6) (c), "in terms of section 4 and 5" was added after "prescribed".

Clause 42(7) was amended and read "For purposes of subsection (4), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties, a party is considered unwilling to negotiate or unable to agree if a facilities leasing agreement is not concluded within the time frames prescribed, and in any case arising under this subsection 5, subsection 4 to 8 then applies".

Ms Smuts expressed concern about Clause 42(9) that said that any exclusivity provision contained in any agreement or other arrangement that was prohibited under subsection (8) was considered null and void. It was difficult to declare agreements null and void retrospectively. She queried whether the ANC had found a way to overcome this problem. She asked about the difference between undersea cables and cable landing stations, and how access to these infrastructures would be dealt with. She asked for more information on the satellites and Sentech.

The Chairperson said that Clause 42(10) declared agreements between countries null and void if they excluded licensees in South Africa.

Mr Oliphant highlighted that further discussion was needed on whether there could be retrospective cancellation of certain agreements. When this Bill came into effect, arrangements that contained an exclusivity provision would be declared null and void.

The Chairperson remarked that Telkom had argued that the consortium with whom they had signed a contract should be addressed regarding the telecommunications cable system. The consortium consisted of Member countries. He asked what the consortium had agreed to.

Mr Mohlaloga said that it had to be established when the agreement would come to an end. Legal advice was required with regard to the application of Clause 42(10). Access to the cables had to be ensured.

Ms Shope-Mafole commented that the Sentech case would not cause difficulties, because the communications facility was a satellite. Sentech leased a transponder or a portion of a transponder. Sentech did not own the satellite transponder, as it belonged to PanAmSat.

With respect to undersea cables, Ms Shope-Mafole agreed that it was an agreement between countries and a commercial agreement between operators. She suggested adding "from a date to be determined by the Minister" in Clause 42(10). Operators would then be given the chance to renegotiate. There were political considerations that had to be taken into account.

Mr Mohlaloga noted that the Committee would consider the Director-General’s suggestion.

The Chairperson stressed that the drafters had to take into account the concerns raised.

Clause 43: Communications facilities leasing regulations
Mr Mohlaloga proposed the ANC amendments for Clauses 43(3), (4), (5), (6) and (7).

The new Clause 43(6) would read as follows: "Where a licensee is exempt from the obligation to lease communications facilities under subsection (5)(b), and such an exempted licensee enters into a communications facilities agreement with another exempted licensee or a person providing services pursuant to al licence exemption, section 42(7) and 44(3) and (4) do not apply to any such communications facilities leasing agreements".

In terms of the new Clause 43(7), the Authority could exempt the communication networks licensee from the obligation to lease fibre loops serving residential premises where the licensee satisfied certain criteria.

Ms Smuts said that the Convergence Bill was supposed to be a technology neutral Act. In Clause 34(6) (e), the ANC had deleted the word "digital" before "technologies". She asked whether the intention of providing exemption from communications facilities obligations was to encourage the rollout of fibre loops. This new approach was interesting.

Mr Oliphant explained that the clause referred to geographical areas and addressed the rollout of fibre. This amendment was more specific than the deletion of the word "digital" in Clause 34(6) (e).

Ms Smuts remarked that the fibre provision addressed significant market powers. She queried whether the intention was to encourage Telkom to unbundle the local loop and roll out fibre. Telkom would in return be exempted from facilities leasing obligations.

Ms Shope-Mafole commented that there was a global movement to encourage people to roll out fibre in the building industry. The provision under Clause 43 encouraged the process of rolling out fibre which would otherwise not take place.

Clause 44: Filing of communications facilities leasing agreements
Mr Mohlaloga said that in Clause 44(1), "for the provision of communications network facilities listed in terms of section 42(3)" would be deleted. In Clause 44(5) and (6), "may" was substituted for "must". Thus, more power was given to the Authority.

Clause 46: Communications facilities leasing rates
The heading of Clause 46 was changed to "Facilities leasing pricing principles". Clause 46(1) was deleted. Clause 47(1) would be amended and would then become Clause 46(1).

The meeting was adjourned.

Appendix:

Radio Frequency spectrum: Allotment, Allocation, & Assignment

International Allotment
· The Minister represents the Republic before the ITU in respect to the international allotment of radio frequency spectrum and international coordination
Allotment, Allocation & Assignment

National Allocation
· Minister will approve the national radio frequency plan developed by the Authority, which allocates specific frequency bands for use by different services based on ITU allotment

National Assignment
· The Authority assigns radio frequencies in accordance with the national radio frequency plan for use by specific licensees within the Republic

Thank You

Department of Communications