HayToni-Ann Neita, Staff Reporter
Debate continues on the issue of the yap jack. To address the concerns of the public regarding the issue and to explain their stance in the matter as guided by the Telecommunications Act 2002, the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) held a public meeting on Friday.
"What is important for the purposes of the discussion here this afternoon is the last line (in Section 2): Voice service includes services referred to as voice over the Internet and voice over IP. So it is not the OUR that has decided that it is a voice service, the law says that it is," said Director-General of the OUR, Winston Hay, speaking at the meeting.
Mr. Hay went through the relevant sections of the Act and explained the Office's involvement in the matter. "We are involved because section 4(1) of the Act states that we shall regulate telecommunications in accordance with the Act," he explained. Consequently the OUR has the responsibility to investigate persons operating in contravention of the Act and specifically to bypass operations and provide specified services, as defined in the Act, without having a licence to provide these services.
How is the Act being breached?
"The yap jacks and similar devices are currently 'prescribed' so that sale, trading in and importing such devices breach section 9(1)(c) since no licences have been issued," said Mr. Hay in his explanation as to how the Act is being breached.
Another point he raised is that when the yap jack is used to make international calls, a specified service is being provided by an unlicensed service provider in breach of section 9(2) and the international voice network of the licensed voice carriers is being bypassed in breach of section 9(1)(b) of the Act.
Scores of individuals attended the meeting and directed their questions and concerns, at times in a very heated manner, to the Director-General. Concerns included the fact that a computer can serve the same function as the yap jack. However, its use is legal in some cases and illegal in others due to its classification as a "prescribed device".
In response to this, Mr. Hay repeatedly revealed that in his opinion "it is the service provider who is in breach of the Act not the person who uses the yap jack and other similar devices." But hastened to say he is "not a lawyer".
The matter is currently in court.
