On the impossibility of making payments via Idram for telecommunication operators’ services and the current situation

In recent days, publications have appeared in the media regarding the suspension by “Idram” Limited Liability Company of the collection of payments for the services of telecommunication sector operators “Viva Armenia” CJSC, “Ucom” CJSC, and “Telecom Armenia” JSC. Being a customer-oriented company that values transparency and reliable information, Idram considers it necessary to provide certain clarifications.

Telecommunication operators are claiming that payment service providers, in particular Idram, charge them a “high commission fee.”

First of all, it should be noted that the commission fee is paid by the telecommunication operator to Idram; its amount concerns two commercial companies, constitutes a commercial secret, and public discussions on this matter are outside the logic of proper business conduct. Since, nevertheless, these issues are being speculated upon, it should be stated that Idram does not charge its customers any commission for the collection of funds for operators’ services, and the commission fees received from operators have been consistently reduced over recent years in favor of the operators. Idram has taken this step based on the principles of mutual benefit and ensuring the convenience of its customers; however, the operators’ latest demand aimed at a drastic reduction of the commission fees paid to Idram would lead to the provision of services at a commission rate below cost.

It is important to state that the mentioned commission fees are charged to cover a number of Idram’s operational expenses, namely: the issuance of electronic money, technical and software maintenance of transactions, information security, terminal maintenance, cash collection and transfer, and continuous investments in the maintenance and development of digital and physical infrastructure, ensuring the uninterrupted execution of payments. In addition, on a daily basis, a significant number of erroneous payments are made by our citizens. Idram also invests considerable resources—both technical and human—to return these funds to citizens, servicing every call and transaction.

All of the above-mentioned expenses form a certain cost base, under which the new, significantly lower commission fees proposed by the operators were simply economically unacceptable for Idram. On this basis, Idram refused to reduce the commission fees in response to the operators’ illogical demand, while at the same time proposing to reach a mutually beneficial agreement through negotiations; however, the proposals made by Idram were rejected by the operators.

We would like to draw the attention of the public to another noteworthy circumstance: the operators, by a strange coincidence, submitted demands to Idram in November–December of last year to reduce commission fees, and again, by another strange coincidence, demanded that the same commission fee be fixed. After receiving a refusal from Idram, at different points in time Idram received notifications from the operators—with almost the same date—regarding the unilateral termination of the contract.

Moreover, two of the operators, “Ucom” CJSC and “Telecom Armenia” JSC, submitted such notifications with a gross violation of the essential terms of the contract, doing so 5–6 days before discontinuing their services. This practice resembles an anti-competitive agreement; therefore, Idram has applied to the Competition Protection and Consumer Interests Commission to obtain an assessment of the legality of these actions.

Specifically addressing the statements being circulated by the operators claiming that Idram rejected an offer of mutually beneficial cooperation, we note that this has no connection whatsoever with objective reality and, moreover, constitutes an attempt to mislead the public. Therefore, Idram reserves the right to challenge these manipulations through legal proceedings and to demand their retraction.

The operators do not consider, in any way, the possibility of stepping back from the revision of the commission fees they are proposing—which are economically disadvantageous for Idram—and, regardless of their public statements, are not open to any compromise.

Nevertheless, Idram is genuinely open to negotiations with the operators and, guided by the principle of ensuring the best possible customer experience, is ready to resume cooperation with the operators under mutually beneficial terms.

IDRAM IS SUPERVISED BY THE CBA