The public was left in suspense yesterday over the phone company's application for higher rates with the regulatory body deciding to consult on evidence presented over the last two days before making an announcement.

The hearing was adjourned at 5:20 pm yesterday by Public Utilities (PUC) Chairman, Prem Persaud after just over an hour during which clarifications were sought from GT&T's Consultant on PUC matters, Godfrey Statia, on a document presented yesterday. The document, promised by Statia at the close of Tuesday's public hearing at the Hotel Tower was delivered to the PUC and consumer groups. However, it excluded the controversial issue of the 6% advisory fees which GT&T pays to its parent company Atlantic Tele Network (ATN).

GT&T is seeking swingeing increases in local rates and a range of other services to compensate for the drop in revenues for calls originating in the US from January this year. Calls within exchanges are projected to rise by 1900% and between exchanges by 75%. Internet users also face the prospect of paying GT&T for the number of minutes they spend online in addition to paying their Internet Service Providers. The PUC had said it would fix temporary rates while it conducted a full investigation of GT&T's rate filing of December 31, 2001.

At the commencement of yesterday's hearing, the consumer groups represented by attorney-at-law, Stephen Fraser, laid over a document prepared by consultant to the groups, Joseph Tyndall, which objected to the consideration and award of temporary rates by the commission on several grounds.

Among the issues alluded to in the Tyndall document, according to Fraser, were non-compliance with certain principles by the phone company, the inclusion of internet services in the application, the methodology used by GT&T to calculate the rates and the valuation of its property in US currency.

Fraser read the opening summary which stated that the PUC was not obliged to consider temporary rates but rather could embark on a hearing to determine permanent rates.

After briefly perusing the document, the PUC chairman sought clarification as to its author, noting that Consumer Advocate, Eileen Cox, had signed it. After receiving assurances that it was authentic he proceeded to lay it over as exhibit 'C'. GT&T's original application was named exhibit 'A', and the additional document it presented yesterday, exhibit 'B'.

Among the clarifications sought of Statia at yesterday's hearing was whether the removal of advisory fees from GT&T's budget and projections would result in its rate of return percentage increasing, to which he responded in the affirmative.

A further question as to whether the telephone company could earn its rate of return if its rate base was reduced, also drew the answer that it would be just under 14%.

Schedule 3 exhibit 6 titled "Budgeted and Projections - Total Operations - 2002" and filed as part of GT&T's application for increased rates, stated that the company projected to earn a 14.7% rate of return on its rate base for 2001, and only 1.77% in 2002, thus its request for rebalancing.

Senior Counsel Miles Fitzpatrick, appearing for GT&T, interjected to state that the 15% rate of return for the company was a minimum and not the maximum as being suggested in some quarters.

The floor was then opened to questions from consumers, but after the first question had been asked, an immediate objection to the procedure came from Senior Counsel Rex McKay for GT&T.

According to McKay, it was irregular for members of the public to cross-examine witnesses, since Statia was being questioned under oath by the commission and counsel for the consumers. Having little success in persuading the chairman to curtail the process, McKay objected again to another question, querying its relevance to the proceedings. After a couple more questions from another consumer, Persaud adjourned the hearing to allow the commissioners to engage in what he termed a consultative process, promising to let the parties know the outcome shortly.