In view of the large number of cases and complaints, it is clear that this is not an accidental or one-time event, but rather a widespread phenomenon. The firm does not accept the company's argument that insofar as calls were made to the client prior to the move, at the initiative of the company's representatives, this is a misunderstanding/instruction that was not understood... During the supervision carried out by the firm in the company on March 18, 2015, the company's general manager stated that 'we have stopped making conservation talks,' a statement that indicates that conservation talks were indeed conducted. When such things are said by the General Manager, it is difficult to see the conservation talks that were carried out as a local initiative of the company's representatives" (my emphases – R.R.).
- Indeed, in demanding payment of the financial sanction, the Ministry of Communications addressed Bezeq's claim that if there were initiated engagements by the company to customers prior to the move, they were due to a misunderstanding on the part of the service representatives. The Ministry of Communications clarified that for the purpose of the decision regarding the imposition of the financial sanction, it did not examine Bezeq's mental element:
"The company's claim that whether there were initiated engagements by the company to customers prior to the move stemmed from a misunderstanding by the service representatives is irrelevant, and in any case does not mitigate the severity of the violation. It should be clarified that the mental element of the violator is not examined when making the decision regarding a financial sanction, but rather the findings that emerged from the supervision process and the degree of compliance of the license holder with the provisions of the regulation and the license" (my emphases – R.R.).
However, the fact that the Ministry of Communications was of the opinion that there was no relevance to the question of the mental element in the framework of the Supervision Report, does not detract from the above conclusion. This conclusion is based, as stated, on the ostensibly positive position of the Ministry of Communications, as it emerges both from the final supervision report and the evidence on which it relied, as well as from other documents that will be detailed below.
- Discrimination between different types of subscriptions - In the final inspection report, it was determined that Bezeq discriminated between the different types of subscribers, discrimination that was expressed in the fact that it operated the call center for inquiries by service providers on a limited scale in relation to the service center for its private subscribers. The final inspection report shows that Bezeq did not repudiate the fact that it operated the call center designated for service providers for fewer hours a day than the call center it operated for its subscribers.
The Banking Supervision Department's report noted that Bezeq had raised a number of claims with the regulator in this regard: it claimed that it provides its retail private subscribers with service beyond standard working hours out of consideration of customer service, and that in any case the service providers can "open an order" 24 hours a day by email or fax. The Ministry of Communications rejected these claims. Bezeq's aforementioned position is consistent with a possible conclusion that the discrimination attributed to it did indeed stem from a deliberate and conscious action and not a mishap. This is sufficient at this stage of the hearing, in which, as recalled, the applicant must meet only a low evidentiary threshold.