Friday, September 9, 2022 ((rezonodwes.com))–
As part of a trial between U.S. company UPM Technology, Haiti’s first telecom operator, Unigestion Holding S.A. (Digicel-Haiti), and an argument date in Oregon state court in September, Approach 14 is questionable. Does the US Telecommunications Act apply to Digicel’s activities abroad in the US?US Judge Michael H. Simon asked both sides to be prepared to discuss some of the statements that Denis O’Brien’s organization has made about the nature of its activities with immigrants in the United States.
Actually, in a dated order September 6, 2022An Oregon state court wrote:
“With respect to UPM’s counterclaims under the Communications Act, one of the issues before the Court is whether Digicel-Haiti’s communications activities in the United States are limited to having physical connections with one or more U.S. carriers. See 47 USC sec. 152(b). Perhaps relevant to this issue. , the court notes that UBM filed excerpts from the registration statement on Form F-1 filed by Digicel Group Limited with the SEC on June 26, 2015.
Digicel Group Limited states on page 6 of the said form: “Digicel Diaspora Site. In addition to offering its subscribers the ability to top up their accounts in its markets, Digicel through its diaspora community initiatives offers subscribers and their families the ability to purchase mobile top-ups remotely. America has a large community of immigrants from Jamaica and Haiti. By marketing directly to these diaspora populations, Digicel will stimulate international calls and allow these communities to “offer” top-ups to those in their markets. To develop our diaspora products, we have established a team based in Miami and have a marketing presence in New York, Los Angeles, Canada and London. Digicel estimates that its diaspora business currently has more than 15,000 retail stores in the countries where it operates. Digicel’s Diaspora product revenue increased from $26 million for the year ended March 31, 2010 to $128 million for the year ended March 31, 2015, representing a CAGR of 37.5%. »
It advises that the parties should be prepared to answer the following questions at the upcoming oral argument:
- Digicel Group Limited Is this statement in Form F-1 admissible (why or why not) as Digicel-Haiti’s statement?
- If admissible, does this statement show that Digicel-Haiti’s communications activities in the United States are not limited to having physical contacts with U.S. carriers for purposes of section 152(b) (why or why not)?
- If this is not enough, what if there is more evidence on the matter?
Regarding the limits of application of the United States Telecommunications Act, Judge Michael H. The provisions of Section 152 of the United States Telecommunications Act referenced in Simon’s order:
(a) The provisions of this chapter apply to all interstate and foreign communications by wire or radio, and to all interstate and foreign transmissions of energy by radio, originating in and/or received in the United States, and to all persons involved. United Nations. United States in any such communication or transmission of energy by radio, and in the licensing and regulation of all radio stations as hereinafter provided; But this shall not apply to persons engaged in communications or transmissions by wire or radio within the Canal Zone or to communications or transmissions entirely by wire or radio within the Canal Zone. The provisions of this chapter shall apply with respect to cable service to all persons engaged in the provision of such service in the United States and to the facilities of cable operators as provided in subchapter VA.
(b) Subject to the provisions of sections 223 to 227 of this title, including section 332 of this title, and the provisions of subchapter 301 and subchapter of this title, nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to apply to VA. or (1) confer jurisdiction on the Commission in relation to any charges, classifications, procedures, services, facilities or regulations or inter-service communication by wire or radio of any operator, or (2) Any operator engaged in interstate or foreign communications solely through a physical connection with the facilities of another operator, directly or indirectly, or under the direct public control or indirect control of such operator. or (3) any operator engaged in interstate or foreign communications by radio link or by wire and radio, in an adjacent state or in Canada or Mexico (when the carrier adjoins the state in which the carrier operates), the car carrier does not directly or indirectly control or control, or has any direct or indirect relationship with such operator; under public control, or (4) to which subsection (2) or clause (3) of this paragraph applies to any operator, interstate mobile radiocommunication service or radiocommunication service to mobile stations on land vehicles in Canada or Mexico; Sections 201 through 205 of this title, except as provided herein for carriers described in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection.
Today the whole question comes down to this phase of the inquiry UPM Technology Digicel is seeking $50 million in damages from HaitiDigicel-Haiti’s activities in the diaspora in the US include its RLYH program (Roam Like You are Home). Only through physical connection with the facilities of another operator that does not control or directly or indirectly controls or is under direct or indirect common control with such operator.