So, who won?

The lack of progress on the Vodacom versus Cell C saga is most unsatisfying, not because I enjoy the spectacle of two heavyweights having a go at each other, but because nothing is being learnt from it.

Imagine this. Two boxers are facing up before the bout. They step into the middle of the ring and shake hands and the bell goes for round one. But instead of putting up their fists, they hold hands, start admiring each other`s shorts and say they will settle their differences outside the ring.

This is the kind of scenario that we are left with. It was the network operators who started the public fight, because there was a serious problem with at least one of the networks that potentially left 26 million people connectionless. But they have left us with no closure on the matter.

To recap, on the afternoon of Friday, 19 May, the Vodacom network went down nationally for somewhere between an hour and 90 minutes. For whatever reason, it blamed Cell C, with which it has a roaming agreement, and then unplugged the smaller network so Vodacom`s could work. The Cell C network only became fully operational again just after 3am on Saturday morning.

Vodacom`s comments about the network and its corrective measures is a masterpiece of understatement.

Both networks owe it to the public to say what actually caused the networks to collapse, to what extent their networks overlap and what kind of service level agreements they have.

Paul Vecchiatto, Cape correspondent

"After extensive investigation, Vodacom has identified that incoming data received on interconnecting links from the Cell C network appear to have disrupted the Vodacom network and Vodacom has, therefore, terminated all links from Cell C to the Vodacom network with immediate effect until this problem can be resolved. Once all Cell C links to the Vodacom network had been terminated, normal service was restored to Vodacom customers," it said.

Speaking at the same time as the issue of the statement, Vodacom COO Pieter Uys said Cell C "had downloaded technically illegal data".

Cell C`s response to this was to call Vodacom everything but a barefaced liar.

"Following Vodacom`s claim that Cell C`s interconnection links disrupted their network, we can categorically confirm that this allegation is false. They are baseless and without foundation. Our technical team has been in consultation with the Vodacom team who were unable to provide adequate and intelligible answers. Despite the communication with Vodacom`s technical team, they decided to disconnect the links which contravenes our commercial agreements," the statement said.

Cell C also claimed that only the 20% of its customers who are roaming the Vodacom network were affected. In terms of the commercial agreement between the two network operators, only Cell C`s rural customers should be roaming as it has all the coverage it needs in the urban areas.

However, during the downtime I found it impossible to get through to any Cell C number. Also, several Cell C Cape Town subscribers told me it was impossible for them to get through to the emergency 112 number.

The damage the spat has done to each network`s reputation is one thing. Vodacom, being the bigger with 23 million subscribers, can easily weather such downtime. Cell C, however, with only three million subscribers and up to its neck in debt, feels the pain far more acutely.

Both networks owe it to the public to say what actually caused the networks to collapse, to what extent their networks overlap and what kind of service level agreements they have.

Cellular connectivity has become an essential feature of our lives. This has been built on the overall technical excellence and the marketing genius of the network operators. However, it is situations such as this that harms the public`s trust in them. While the lack of trust doesn`t mean we will stop using their service overnight, it does mean we will look for alternatives whenever we can.