Pakistan has three submarine cables. SEA-ME-WE3 and SEA-ME-WE4 are being operated by the state-owned PTCL, while the private sector has been operating the TWA cable since 2006. Yet the government has been halting competition by forbidding the private cable for the internet service providers. Finally the regulator has lifted such puritan embargo. Thanks to the authorities’ belated commonsense.
Meanwhile, Bangladesh remains heavily intoxicated with the worst spirit of protection. The government has been delaying the arrival of second submarine cable through private sector. It has rather issued only one private internet gateway license under the infamous ILDTS policy. The regulator, since then, has been forcing the ISPs to purchase international bandwidth from the public-private duopoly. Bureaucracy, thy name is corruption!
27 Comments
Amar
@ Abu Saeed Khan
Whatever happened to the submarine cable initiative take by the past BTRC commissioner? Wasn’t two cable suppose to come from the private sector? Seems like the BTRC is now sleeping after rapid policy movement by the past BTRC commissioner. Also do you know what is the total Internet bandwidth in Bangladesh?
Abu Saeed Khan
@ Amar
Private submarine cable was initiated long before the past Chairman of BTRC got his job. He had rather messed it up by hiring a retired army signals officer, who had no clue about submarine cable in the first place. Yet this “Consultant” has wasted public funds in overseas trips “to acquire knowledge” on submarine cable. Lately the Chairman and the Consultant have lost their jobs. Interestingly, the authorities have, again, employed another retired army officer to structure the licensing process. Wait and watch!
You seem to be quite misinformed. BTRC’s immediate past leadership has actually deformed the telecoms sector in the name of reforming it. The infamous ILDTS policy was prepared by the military intelligence. Predictably instead of injecting competition, the illegal bypassing of international calls has now become rampant. Besides, BTRC has no authority to enact any policy. Only the cabinet is legally empowered to do that.
Until couple of months ago, 48 numbers of STM-1 circuits were activated. More circuits were added later but I am not sure about the number.
Amar
So there is no hope for the Telecom industry in Bangladesh? Its all a downward spiral.
Shariar
Dear Mr. Abu Sayeed
I would like to highlight some inaccuracies in your comments. First of all, the previous BTRC chairman did not leaave a mess and it was not motivated by the military. Infact due to the presence of the IGW, ICX and IIG the telecom sector in Bangladesh has become more transparent, competitive and local-business friendly. Let me highlight why:
IIG: before the presence of the IIG the only source for bandwidth for the ISPs was BTTB or BTCL. Which was slow, inefficient and not responsive in terms of dealing with technical problems. When IIG mango was introduced the ISPs had a pofessional company which was responsive, customer-oriented and most importantly efficient. Rather than an additional layer it is the duplication of an existing layer in order to bring in competition. WHile this may have had an impact on the price being paid by consumers, it is very very minimal. of the total cost to deliver bandwidth to a customer for an average ISP – Bandwidth accounts for only 15% of the total cost- Thus we need to look at other bottlenecks, specifically in the last-mile transmission end as they have a bigger price impact on bandwidth pricing. This too was addressed by the BTRC in the form of the NTTN license which would mitigate the need for each isp to build their own backbone through overhead cables (which are both inefficient and a safety hazard). I suggest you look at the business model in more detail.
ICX: before the introduction of the ICX new operators and smaller operators (like the PSTNs) were not able to connect properly to any of the larger operators like GP, CityCell or AKtel. This was done by the larger operators intentionally so that the smaller operators do not get to grow. So when a subscriber bought a line from the PSTN and he could not reach numbers in the larger operators they would think the PSTN or the smaller operators network is at fault when it was the larger operators intentionally sabotaging the connection. with the ICX all operators are required to connect to one point alone, the ICX, and thus reach all networks with equal ease. plus the ICX would also bring about number portability to the subscriber which would allow the customers the freedom to switch networks without having to switch numbers. It is because the ICX was not present that operators like Warid, Rankstel, National Tel, etc. never grew up. in terms of costs, the interconnection charge by the ICX is lower than the charges set by GP and other operators. The only reason people are shouting about it is because the foreign-owned mobile operators are not getting the revenu but the local ICXs are earning the revenue and bringing about openness. in this respect i fail to see the merit of your argument.
IGW: the igws brought about openness to the market – specifically in the form of competition through multiple licenses. Before IGws came about there was no method of connecting to Bangladesh via VOIP. This allowed more carriers to connect to Bangladesh. Also the private companies are more efficient and have greater hunger to connect to carriers thus ensuring that the barriers to connectivity are removed. In the first six months of operation all 4 IGWs have brought in over 2000crore to the national exchequer in foreign currency. This has a positive impact on the nation and also on the quality of the connectivity.
With regards to the number of licenses – even though your academic background is in Bengali and not in economics and telecoms i presume you would know the basic fact that telecommunication market is by nature oligopolistic. this is observed in all countries across the world starting from the America to Zambia. In this respect the increase in the number of licensees would not have resulted in healthy competition but would have replicated the same disaster we are seeing among the PSTN and ISP operators. BTRC had the foresight to predetrmine the market structure in this manner so that companies and consequently investments do not become wasted like before at the cost of quality and the consumers. also the cost of termination into Bangladesh is only 3 cents – this is much lower than developed and highly internet connected countries like UK and France where it ranges from 9 cents to 15 cents. In fact the termination rates into Bangladesh represent EXPORT for the country. Thus the higher the termination rate the higher the export for the country. by lowering the termination rate the only beneficiaries have been the operators abroad who still charge the same amount to their consumer but pay a lot less to terminate the minute- The Bangladeshis abroad do not get to reap the benefits.
A lot of hue an cry is being made about the revenue sharing arrangement. the Revenue is going to the people of the country and not to some private parties or being siphoned back to foreign owners. So where is the problem? if the revenue share is too high why are the new operators not complaining and why is it so much of a problem? it is after all citizens of Bangladesh, through the government, who are earning this revenue. furthermore the revenue share is higher than any tax rate in Bangladesh – thus the government is actually earning more. And if the previous chairman was corrupt and these licenses were politically awarded, wouldn’t the chairman have given a much lower revenue share to these operators at a much lower license cost?
Yes the second submarine cable was envisioned before the Chairman but it was he who took the initiative. Give credit where credit is due. The guy who was in charge of the second submarine cable was not an expert in this field that is correct but one of the commissioners under whom he was working was the person who had overseen Bangladesh’ Se Me We 4 cable connectivity. So he was not left to his own devices nor was the BTRC being guided by someone ignorant. I have worked directly with the BTRC for over 5 years and the changes i saw in the past two years prior to the new chairman is one to appreciate and admire. The problem it seems is that he stopped people from doing an activity which by the law of the land was illegal, he awarded licenses transparently and he promoted local businesses(all IGWS, ICXs and IIG had to be owned by local companies).
So my question is – where is the problem.
Abu Saeed Khan
@ Shariar
Your comments lack attribution to any reference. You have also claimed to have “worked directly with the BTRC for over 5 years.” But the capacity of your employment remains unclear.
Nevertheless, you have desperately defended the misdeeds of BTRC during 2007-08. Interestingly, on May 13 the incumbent chairman said, “The telecoms regulator was made to look like the police by the 2007-2008 military-installed emergency government.” Please read this: http://bdnews24.com/details.php?id=84171&cid=2
No wonder the elected-government has decided to revise the infamous ILDTS policy, according to this news: http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=86219
Your sympathy for the submarine cable consultant is stunning. “The guy who was in charge of the second submarine cable was not an expert in this field that is correct but one of the commissioners under whom he was working was the person who had overseen Bangladesh’ Se Me We 4 cable connectivity,” you said.
That means one should hire a driver who doesn’t know driving. Yet he should get the job as the car’s owner knows how to drive. Nepotism 2.0 ruled BTRC.
Consultants are hired under a clearly defined terms of reference, which explicitly states the deliverables. Thanks for admitting the consultant being clueless about submarine cable. But you have concealed the fact that BTRC had wasted public funds to train him in overseas. If this is “business as usual” then “corruption” needs to be redefined.
The infamous ILDTS policy has failed to create any competition. The regulator dictates international settlement rates as well as the local tariff. That’s why the IGW, ICX and IIG providers cannot offer any competitive rates. Whereas, the fixed, mobile and Internet providers have been battling for market share using various competitive tariffs. It proves the total failure of ILDTS policy.
Middleman in any supply chain affects the retail price. Every year the Bangladesh government procures paddy at a price that helps the farmers making good margin. But the farmers never get that price, as the middleman in this procurement process eats up the yield.
Similarly, the BTRC has placed the IGW and ICX as “middleman” between the retail providers (Mobile and PSTN who actually have the traffic) and their overseas counterparts. The regulator dictating international settlement rate has, inevitably, promoted internal bypassing.
A recent press report (http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=74477) says 40 per cent overseas calls in Bangladesh are now being bypassed. That possibly answers why the IGW and ICX operators don’t complain about the impractical revenue-sharing regime.
Because, these operators are businessmen – not priests. And a license being infested with grossly flawed parameters is certainly not a religion, let alone a regulatory instrument. ROI is the only issue and the IGW-ICX operators have to achieve it.
The ongoing rampant bypass of international traffic may be undesirable but it was officially predicted to the authorities by an international consultant. He had ultimately resigned to protect his reputation from the infamy of ILDTS policy. Documentary evidences in this regard are available with the telecoms ministry.
At that time, the BTRC had “consulted” everybody – except the ones from international traffic business – prior to cooking the ILDTS policy. And you have explained the reason: “BTRC had the foresight to pre-determine the market structure in this manner so that companies and consequently investments do not become wasted like before at the cost of quality and the consumers.”
Sounds like an official statement from North Korea, Myanmar or Zimbabwe.
Segregation is the darkest part of ILDTS policy. It forbids the IGW, ICX and IIG licenses for all telecoms providers. It equally prohibits the IGW, ICX and IIG providers acquiring stakes in PSTN, mobile or other telecoms businesses. Above all, the nonresident Bangladeshi citizens are not allowed to acquire the IGW, ICX and IIG licenses.
BTRC, in connivance with a section of the then military establishment, had incorporated these illegal restrictions.
You have also said that oligopoly “is observed in all countries across the world starting from the America to Zambia.” That makes all regulators – from FCC to CAZ – the wolf in sheepskin. Kindly elaborate your revolutionary doctrine.
I am also keen to know the logic of creating a private sector monopoly by issuing the sole license for IIG. BTRC at (invisible) gunpoint secured cheaper bandwidth from the government and secured the IIG provider’s interest. Official correspondences in this regard are available in BTRC as well as in the telecoms ministry.
You said, “And if the previous chairman was corrupt and these licenses were politically awarded, wouldn’t the chairman have given a much lower revenue share to these operators at a much lower license cost?”
Please note that I have never been critical to any specific individual, let alone the former chairman. I have also never questioned the awarding procedure of IGW, ICX or IIG license. My observation has always been pertaining to the infamous ILDTS policy. The entire leadership of BTRC and the then military regime are jointly responsible for creating a regulatory havoc in Bangladesh during 2007-08.
However, since you are a great defender of the immediate past chairman’s ethical standard, please read one uncontested press report questioning how BTRC had “allowed to escape” the mobile phone operators the legal consequences of bypassing international traffic: http://www.newagebd.com/2008/sep/06/front.html#2
Another report challenges the BTRC looting US$ 1.46 million in the name of bonus: http://www.newagebd.com/2008/sep/29/front.html#8
Never mind, Shariar (If it is at all your real name). Fact is stranger than fiction and Mick Jagger correctly sings, “Old habits die hard. Old soldiers just fade away.”
Shariar
Dear Mr. Khan
Thank you for your reply – it seems we now need to prove identities and also honesty before posting on blogs and on the internet as you question my identity (first sentence last para) and my honesty (sentence 3 para 6 where you accuse me of concealment). But since i do not have references for either guess my wild accusations will have to do for now.
But while we are quoting references please give references which will give any credibility to your accusations that 1. even though i agreed with you, the previous consultant knew nothing about submarine cables, 2. he was hired through nepotism 3. BTRC had connived with military establishment had contrived illegal restrictions. The point i am trying to make is not everything people, including you, say necessarily have references and a lot of it is intellectual hypothesis and arguments.
It is amusing to see you have not argued with the points i made in terms of the merits regarding the system and each layer. rather you have elaborated on a totally seperate set of arguments without refuting mine. Nevertheless i shall follow the normal process of an intellectual argument and refute your points to the best of my ability even though i am not a telecoms expert with a bengali literature degree.
Let me address your points one by one:
1. BTRC made to look like police: so your objection is to the fact that the btrc, with the help of RAB, was actually taking action against those who were conducting an illegal activity? you are not interested in the fact that the criminals were caught but rather that the BTRC remained the toothless operator. FYI BTRC sets policies and policing / ensuring the regulations are being met is its responsibility.
2. Submarine cable consultant: I agree chosing him was not wise but he was not left without guidance and no final decision was taken. also regarding his foreign trips – again please provide reference and also please tell me how those foreign trips (altogeth 3 or four short trips from what i gather) equals corrpution or nepotism? Is it not very common to send someone on a fact finding mission if his post merits it? The fact that he was incompetent is a separate issue and does not necessarily indicate copprution nor nepotism. FYI he used to work with BTTB before the previous government or chairman.
3. ILDTS Policy and competition: Well if the ILDTS policy did not introduce competition why are the IGWs competing globally for more traffic, why are ICXs banging on the mobile phone company’s doorsteps to get more traffic and why is BTCL trying to improve itself through 24 hour NOc, visits to seminars and establishing PoPs across the globe? If the mobile operators are infact bring in competition and it is so fair, why do we have GP as such a large operator effectively manipulating the market? Why is there absolutely NO objection from you or your institution about lack of antitrust and anti-competition laws which would prevent GP from becoming this dominant and manipulating the market? If middlemen are always undesirable then why are there so many data and voice aggregators globally like Ibasis, Verizon, Teleglobe, BT, Belgacom etc.? They act as middlemen – yet you have on objections with their existence? because they are foreign-owned and not owned by fellow Bangladeshis? The elimination of middlemen is not necessarily a market norm – rather it depends on many factors. Whether the middlemen act as impediments to fair pricing and free trade is more of a concern – but then we need to look at the issue of cartels instead (again bringing about issues pertaining to anti-trust laws which would be also applicable to GP). In fact Cartels are the reason why we have the problem in food pricing and distribution and not middlemen – infact in an ideal world the middlemen in the food sector plays a very vital role in food preservation and logistical support.
4. Bypassed calls: If you read your own refernece article you will notice that Mir Nasir was complaining about calls being bypassed – so yes they are complaining. if on the other hand you are accusing them of bypassing the calls themselves then again please provide your reference. If indeed they are bypassing then isnt it self-defeating for them to complain to the media as it would ghilight their illegla activity? Please clarify your logic in this regard. Just like operators are businessmen so are consultants – neither are priests – but that does not give right to make accusations without proof.
5. Market structure: I do not know whether my statement is from North Korea, Myanman or Zimbabwe but i know this: if oligopoly is so bad what would you say our great mobile phone sector is? Oligopolistic or perfect competition? Also if you look at most developed countries you willl see they have concentrated number of telecom service provders: in UK there are only 5 mobile operators, 6 main PSTNs, 3 main ISPs even though the market is ”ópen”. In France, India, Singapore, Hong Kong, Sweden its the same thing over and over again. I do not have a reference on hand but i am looking for a document in this regard.
6. Segregation: I agree with the segregation of participants because it promoted local companies. Tell me then why after opening up the mobile market for such a long time and with such great success do we not have a single Bangladeshi CEO in Grameen, Aktel, Banglalink, Warid et. al.? Are we all incompetent foolsthat in 13 years we have not developed management material but have a plethora of telecom experts and consultants? No complaints about that it seems. Also the NRBs being restrcited was done as that would give rise to unfair competition between NRBs ad non-NRBs. the simple fact that an NRB can have a foreign bank account and a company whereas a local cannot would give rise to advantages to NRBs at the cost of local businessmen.
7. BTRC corruption: So the fine of 838Cr was too low and the mobile operators got away through corrupt means? I agree with you but why aren’t you writing articles on this continuously? Why no comments on how mobile operators are siphoning money out of the country? Also the fine was the largest fine ever collected from mobile operators in Bangladesh so should be appreciated. If the chairman had taken money he should have reduced the penalty and also should have given the money back (which funilly enough the current chairman is thinking of doing). With regards to looting $1.46 million – if its looting why get it approved by ministry and through public limelight? After all a thief does not steal by announcing the act of theft in broad daylight. I support the award of bonuses as government officials should be given rewards for their good work just like the private sector officials. I see no problem in that.
As you finished by quoting a song. i shall finish as well with quoting a Bob Dylan song ‘the times are a changing’
”Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pens
And keep your eyes open, the chance won’t come again”
‘
PS: let me know how i can post my voter id on this post so that i can prove my identity and have the right to comment.
Abu Saeed Khan
@ Mr. Shariar
FYI, Bangladesh Telecommunication Act, 2001 governs the sector. Sub-section 1 under Section 33 says: “The functions of the Ministry shall be to determine the general policy of the Government in the telecommunication sector and to encourage the development of that sector in Bangladesh.” Therefore, BTRC cannot enact the ILDTS policy. Elite crime buster Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) is an enforcing instrument and they acted upon being instructed. They did nothing wrong. But BTRC has not followed the Sections 66 through 83 while engaging the traffic bypassing outfits. Therefore, it’s a pointless effort to make RAB the scapegoat on this issue.
ILDTS policy and competition: Competition and rivalry are different. There are thousands of refueling outlets in Bangladesh. But the consumers pay same prices for diesel and petrol nationwide. This is one example of lacking competition despite having several providers of a mass-market product. Such multiple providers offer no competitive rate to the consumers, as the government dictates the prices. But those refueling providers compete against each other. In a nutshell: there is no competition in the gasoline market of Bangladesh. That’s why the black market of adulterated gasoline has been rampant. BTRC has created exactly the similar situation by dictating the international tariff at local and overseas segments. And the IGW provider has to share 70% of its revenue with BTRC. Moreover, it has restricted the number of providers. That’s why the consumers (PSTN and mobile users) are not getting competitive tariffs while calling overseas. Because the IGW license has been structured in that manner. The outcome is: ungovernable bypass – both internally and externally. Ineffective regulatory regime allows disproportionate growth of an operator. Grameenphone is not an exception. Continuous denial of interconnection by the then state-owned BTTB had halted the network expansion of all operators. Such denial was a clear violation of the telecoms law, which became effective on July 10, 2001. By then Grameenphone had widened its network using Railway’s optical fibre network followed by fast expanding the clientele through mobile-to-mobile package. Others followed suit with similar packages but could not match the geographic reach of GP. State-owned BTTB’s transmission price was too high for the rivals to challenge the business case of GP. The consequence was maddening. Operators started rolling out respective transmission networks (both fiber and microwave) towards common destinations. It did cost them monetarily and time wise. Meanwhile GP, obviously, kept on acquiring more customers and leaped far ahead of the rest combined. This is certainly not desirable. But the BTTB’s mindless interconnection regime as well as its impractical pricing of transmission links has inevitably created the mobile market’s uneven growth. Yet the meteoric rise of Banglalink, to the second position in terms of clientele, should be taken into account. It’s now considering consolidation with the nearest rival Aktel. Please note that BTTB’s denial to interconnect is the cause of mobile-to-mobile. Such isolated consumers have been shaping the mobile landscape of Bangladesh. Offering mobile-to-mobile service is illegal as it doesn’t offer universal access. But it is the result of BTTB’s consistent violation of telecoms law by denying interconnection in the first place. That’s why the government had lost its moral authority to proliferate such a gigantic and abnormal clientele. And these millions of subscribers, isolated from BTTB’s network, became the perfect conduit of bypassed traffic. The genie is out of the bottle. And only a good policy, not at all good policing, can put it back. That is the failure of ILDTS policy, which is also notoriously ultranationalist.
Bypassed calls: The owner of an IGW not necessarily remains aware of bypass in his network. Because the persons responsible at the network operations can tamper the system and hide the bypassed traffic. Therefore, the company’s book remains red while the wallets of few corrupt employees get fat. Bypassed traffic is the worst among all smuggled products in the history of mankind. Unlike gold, drugs, arms or precious metals – it is invisible yet bears multimillion dollars of price tags. That brings the powerful clout into the loop for protection. Policing has never been a sustainable countermeasure to thwart bypassing anywhere in the world. Effective policy is the only answer. Please note – Ibasis, Verizon, Teleglobe, BT, Belgacom and others have neither emerged nor exist by virtue of any manipulated policy. Besides, they have the right to acquire stakes in access networks at respective country. Verizon, Tata (owner of Teleglobe), Reliance (owner of FLAG and Falcon), SingTel, Etisalat, AT&T, NTT, Bharti, China Mobile, T-Mobil, France Telecom and the list goes on. ILDTS policy denies the IGW providers’ such right in Bangladesh.
Segregation: Your obsession for “local companies” and “middleman” is intriguing and I lack the ability to match it. The non-resident Bangladeshis are enemy of the state because they operate bank accounts in foreign currency. I’m spellbound. I am also stunned to find that appointing CEOs could be a regulatory topic. I simply don’t qualify to remark on the competence of officials in mobile outfits. But the industry has been witnessing the rise of local talents in the key positions of various mobile entities. As far as my knowledge goes – the head of finance in Grameenphone is a Bangladeshi. The heads of technical and marketing in Aktel are also from Bangladesh. They have replaced expatriate officials and the trend appears upward. Let me look around a bit more – Waliur Bhuyian (British Oxygen), Ruplai Chowdhury (a woman, Berger Paints), Sarwar Ahmed (Singenta), Mamunur Rashid (Citibank), Azizul Haque (Glaxo SmithKline), Lutful Chowdhury (Reckitt Benckiser), Iftekharul Islam (Sanofi-aventis), Majedur Rahman (Bank Alfalah) and few others are Bangladeshi CEOs of multinationals in the country. They have replaced the foreigners by virtue of merit. Please enlighten me with the references of regulatory intervention, newspaper articles or other factors that drove their appointments.
By the way, approval by the head of government never provides legal immunity to any executive order. Decisions approved by the preceding political governments’ heads dominate the long list of corruption charges being probed by the Anticorruption Commission. Why should the endorsement of reckless public expenditure by an unelected head of the government be exempted?
Amar
Ok, Let me comment on something that takes a brake from this.
Question to both Abu Saeed Khan and Mr. Shariar, What is the BTRC doing now as they have been very quite as of late? Did they lost their dynamism after the new commissioner came in? the Status of the 2nd submarine cable? Thanks
Amar
Also what about wimax and the licensing of 3G?
Abu Saeed Khan
@Amar
Banglalion Communications (http://www.banglalion.com.bd) and Augere Wireless Broadband (Bangladesh) Limited (http://www.augere.eu/index.html) won two Wimax licenses. Each paid US$31.6 million to acquire respective license. Banglalion’s website gives no definite deadline of launch while Augure’s doesn’t even mention its WiMax venture in Bangladesh. Both the companies are, however, keeping the local media updated. One news is here: http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=91778 and the other is here: http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/2009/04/25/64796.html Please note that there could be further updates in the web.
State-owned BTCL has also got a license. It is not clear if they have paid the license fee as yet. The government’s mobile venture, TeleTalk, is yet to be a success. The media has questioned the rationale of BTCL pursuing WiMax (http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=62529) .
A trial of 3G was conducted during the second half of 2008 (http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=51305). Subsequently, in November, the regulator said that 3G licenses would be issued by March 2009 (http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=63099). As far as I know, the public consultation document for 3G was also prepared at that time. But Shariar, who closely worked in BTRC, may possibly clarify why the consultation was not initiated.
Last month, the telecoms minister said “The 3G licences might be issued after WiMax debuts in the market in between June and July” (http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=87245). The minister has, however, not clarified the relation between launching of Wimax and issuing 3G licenses.
There is still no “sonar” signal from the second submarine cable front. I believe the tagging of top officials to the successes and failures of an institution demonstrates the lack of institutional capacity in the first place. And that that happens due to the enactment of bad policy at national level. The poor performance of BTRC is just one such example.
Shariar
@ Abu Saeed Khan
Thank you for your reply. I never said RAB was a scapegoat (they are anything but) and they could not be because they did ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong. Also with regards to policies – yes BTRC does not make them but they recommend and the ministry reviews, modifies and approves. HOwever, the BTRC IS in charge of Implementing / Enforcing them. As such the capture of illegal voip operators was within that scope. In terms of the fines and the conditions – yes they charged a higher fine and i guess we should punish the BTRC for collecting more than the pitiful 5 lakh taka penalty from the operators as opposed to 838crore taka(which btw is nothing compared to the figures earned by them over the years through illegal termination or as you call it in a diplomatic form ‘bypass calls’). to quote an example – if an operator were terminating 1 million minutes per day back in 2001 then they would have been earning USD 120,000 per day (as the rate back then for grey was around 12c). So multiply that by 360 you get $43,200,000 per year – when you consider the total market size was approx 25 million – they were terminating a whole lot more. in fact their license should have been cancelled – but no calls from you for that.
ILDTS policy and competition: So your advice with the example of Fuel and smuggling of fuel is this: since we cannot stop smuggling and have an inneffective customs and border control – lets get rid of the fuel subsidy and make the country suffer? Rather than dealing with the cause you are dealing with the effect? A similar analogy would be if students keep on cheating in exams and it is increasingly becoming hard to catch them cheating then lets allow cheating in exams rather than ‘policing’ it or improving standard of teaching. FYI IGw has to share 52% and not 70% as you mentioned with the BTRC.
The competitive tariffs and number of IGw has no logic. in fact if you look at the number of licenses – given that they are limited – the volume of calls going out of the country is higher per operator. This helps in bargaining better rates from the outside carriers and lower rates to the consumers calling abroad. Normal economics would dictate that. Furthermore, outgoing rates within Bangladesh is set by the BTRC and not the operators. I agree that it should be lowered but it has no impact based on the number of licensees.
I fail to understand why in ANY of your statements you fail to condemn those who have done illegal termination. You almost portray them as victims or hard working service providers and not someone who profiteered from conducting something illegally AND deprived the national exchequer from foreign currency and income tax. I prefer to call a spade, a spade.
While you are amazed by my request for protection for local companies, I am amazed by your ambivalence towards it being a citizen of our country. Is it wrong for me to ask that our countrymen become successful? is it wrong for me to ask that local companies become global? Is it wrong for me to hope they will compete with foreign companies? Why do we need to open up specific sectors to foreign companies when locals companies have adequate investment themselves. Why this assumption that shada chamra will result in good business and only multinationals are the saviours of the country.
I agree with your analysis of why GP has become this big but you did not mention one detail – GP managed to secure more interconnections than any other operators at that time which seriously affected their ability to service the business users who are usually high ARPU users. However, this is all the fault of the government at that time. the last BTRC regime had no role to play in it – which was my initial argument. Since what has been done has been done, the only thing we can do is take remedial actions which promote local companies and local talent into this sector. Even if it results in a relatively complex system, in the long term it will benefit the country. Again this does not mean we keep the status quo and do nothing about it. The ICX plays a valuable role in ensuring a level playing field which none of the operators including BTTB abided by when left to their own devices. We could ask them to play fair with interconnects but then the BTRC would have to again, god help us, police it. Also you mention nothing about the advantages to the consumers than number portability, the economic efficiencies of having single point interconnectivity with the ICx brings to the market and the ease with which they gave new interconnection to the smaller operators. It seems they are all mute points for some reason as you seem to be only interested in discussing pros and cons for foreign mobile operators. We MUST try to mitigate the damage of previous regimes – the IDLTS addresses this by promoting local companies – for some reason its a big sin and ultranationalist – next you will be calling them fascists.
Bypassed calls: You mention about the ability of the foreign carriers to own other networks but the fact remains that they DO NOT OWN the other licenses in as big a scale and in the global voice market only operate AS MIDDLEMEN. This does not explain how they add value and seem to exist in this world successfully even though your logic would dictate they should be abolished. Perhaps we should get back to the days of the ITU and GTM when each country would only connect with the other country and charge each other exorbitant rates based on TAR – after all it had no middlemen back then…. Also if you are trying to say that illegal call termination only happened because of some corrupt officials and ont owners? Were these respective company owners ignorant of their direct connectivity between Digi and GP (both Telenor companies) and TM and AKtel (both TM companies) and Singtel and CityCell(both Singtel companies). Then why are blaming the MPs for selling their tax-free cars maybe their drivers did it, maybe the importer was honest but his employee was smuggling the contraband – maybe it was not a bribe just a personal loan which turned into a bad debt. Your staunch support for for the ethical practices of the foreign companies and your ardent belief in their innocence really amazes me! Again i highlight, not once have you criticised or blamed these operators for doing something wrong- you have repeatedly bypassed it (much like the traffic – bad joke).
Also you have NO OBJECTION to the fact that there are also limited mobile licenses – why not open it up for everyone? Why no fight for this? No raising of that issue? And your scenario where someone in the IGW might be doing the grey without the owners knowledge , the same might happen with mobile operators – how does opening up the license stop this? Stealing is stealing and anyone can do it whatever the regime.
Segregation: With regards to NRBs being enemies – i never said that. Familiarity with Bangladesh Bank and foreign currency laws would immediately make you aware that locals cannot take loans in dollars and they have serious restrictions in raising funds in USD which is much cheaper than financing in Taka. Foreign companies and NRBs have that advantage. E.g. if an NRB / foreign company were to secure a loan from abroad in USD the rate would fall between 3-4%. If a bangladeshi company were to secure a loan it would have to be in taka and the rate would be above 12%. The differential is huge. This makes it uncompetitive for a local company from a financial efficiency perspective. Again its simple accounting. Perhaps we can change the foreign currency law but then we are opening a whole different can of worms.
Also certain sensitive sectors require local presence and it is not uncommon. E.g. you will be ‘stunned’ to know that even in the US no foreign owner can own the majority of a TV network – Rupert Murdoch had to change his citizenship to US in order to purchase Fox Network (http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2007-05-01-murdoch-empire_N.htm). No person can open a company in singapore without a representation from a local director on the board in Singapore. Furthermore, if we were to look at India as a success story then why are we not considering the fact that India went through an iterative process before opening their market. Even companies like HOnda, Coca Cola, Pepsi et. al., by law, could not market their products under their own sole brand name when india first opened up and had to use the name of the local companies as well, e,g, Hero Honda. They also had and still have strict laws on money repatriation and indian representation within senior management (http://www.buyusa.gov/india/en/394.pdf look at page 48 under ’employment’ and ye shall be enlightened – suggest you also read this http://www.keglerbrown.com/ASSETS/46F6625E38C342738530A92FFEC61FFA/india-asian-tiger.pdf and ). These crazy laws from these crazy stupid countries (what were they thinking – they must be kicking themselves for their mistakes and now they are sufferring as economic faliures!! They could learn a thing or two from successful Bangladesh mobile market and your expert advice on opening up). JOking aside (or rather like a cruel joke) We have none of these things and like fools we have opened ourselves and the genie is truly out of the bottle. That is why local companies need even more protection than before. Yet you are happy for foreign companies to earn all the money and repatriate the profits abroad. PLease explain why this fascination with foreign companies and removing protection for local companies. Even advanced countries like US, UK and France all do the same yet we are more keen on opening it up. The English have left and so have the Pakistanis and about time we start being our own masters.
With regards to the other companies with local CEOs- full credit to them and i think it marks a massive improvement. Now only if we could ensure they keep some of their profits within the country and get them to list on the stock exchange – but wait, that would mean local participation / ownership and sharing their success – can’t have that now can we? Remember it was ONLY after the push from the BTRC that GP even considered listing itself in the stock exchange.
I never commented on expemtions of anyone from corruption. If they were found to be corrupt then do charge them. HOwever it seems you have decided they are guilty until proven innocent. However – with the foreign mobile companies – they are innocent because it is only the corrupt fellow Bangladeshis who were doing all the misdeeds and the foreign owners were saints. Again i ask you why no condemnation of those who have admitted to doing a crime? Why no criticism of them? Are you reluctant to comment on this for some reason? The more i look into your comments the more i see you are hell bent on defending the mobile operators and absolving them from any wrongdoing whatsoever…
Also you failed to comment ever on my opinion regarding the IIG, NTTN, ISP bandwidht pricing, etc in my first post.
@ amar
With regards to Wimax the reason why 3g has not been issued priot to Wimax is so that the Wimax operators have a breathing space to launch their product before the 3g licenses are issued – BTW 3g licenses will ONLY be issued to the existing mobile operators. (Shouldn’t Mr. Khan ask that this also be opened up for anyone to take on the basis of an auction like ICX, IGW and IIG?) The reason the BTRC has not issued license sooner is due to the inefficiency of the current BTRC plain and simple – that i think we both agree
Shariar
@ Abu Saeed Khan
Dear Mr Khan – can solicit a reply from you to my above questions?
Abu Saeed Khan
@ Mr. Shariar
Sorry for the belated response. I had been traveling. Thanks for correcting me on the percentage of revenue each IGW operator shares with BTRC. You are right; it’s 52% instead of 70% as I wrote.
If you search the archive, you will see how I abhor bypass. Bypass is a disease while flawed policies (National Telecom Policy of 1998 and ILDTS Policy of 2008) are the cause.
Recognizing the disease I propose to eliminate its cause. You seem to be keen on fighting the disease keeping the cause untouched. That’s where I respectfully disagree with you.
Currently 40% of the overseas calls are being reportedly bypassed in Bangladesh. This pandemic is growing with alarming consequences as the ILDTS policy midwifes the cause.
The way BTRC had imposed financial penalties remains questionable. It was extra-judicial and the penalties were “negotiated”. Even the worst criminals reserve legal rights and the judges never “negotiate” the verdict.
What is the guarantee that Tk838 crore was not a “pitiful” amount that BTRC had assessed? What is the legal basis of such calculation and negotiation?
BTRC once contemplated to cancel the mobile licenses for bypassing, according to this news: http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=21336. Ultimately it never crossed the sword.
You claimed to have worked in BTRC for five years at undisclosed capacity. You may, therefore, possibly clarify what actually prompted such unilateral cease-fire.
Meanwhile let’s stroll in the memory lane. You may recollect that BTRC sought explanation from Grameenphone for leasing its nationwide optical fibre capacity without license. Here is the news: http://www.thedailystar.net/2005/01/12/d50112050246.htm But the regulator has never followed it up.
Even the 2007-08 regime of BTRC was reluctant to touch this “sensitive” issue. I’m not sure if you know about it. I’m also unsure if you know that a local underdog named “Bangla Phone” became the preferred victim instead. BTRC’s systematic marginalization of Bangla Phone has been elaborated in the media as follows:
1. http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=4059
2. http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=75061
3. http://www.thedailystar.net/pf_story.php?nid=13753
Evidently, BTRC has overlooked Grammenphone. But it wasted no time to shoot at Bangla Phone. A brilliant example of protecting local interests!
The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) were also the victims of BTRC’s extra-judicial onslaught. The regulator has issued 3.5 GHz band spectrum for point-to-multipoint data networks. Accordingly the ISPs have been importing the equipment for that frequency.
In the middle of 2007 the BTRC suddenly banned the import of any 3.5 GHz equipment unless it enacts the “WiMax policy”. Because this spectrum belongs to 802.16d family of fixed-WiMax technology. BTRC also halted the import of all WiFi equipment on similar ground.
What was the result? The wireless network expansion by local ISPs was stalled while the mobile industry took over the data market. Thanks to the regulatory hypocrisy of BTRC.
Policy, not policing, ensures rule of law. And honesty is always the best policy. The ILDTS policy lacks honesty. Let it be fixed while the rest can wait.
rainyday
@ everybody
I think the whole idea about having a Governing body like BTRC is lame and medieval. I mean nobody has a BTRC equivalent of for other businesses (can you imagine a regulatory commission for grocery shops, or household items, or electronic appliances etc.) what make business/activities involving telecommunication technology any different? Why can’t a local guy makes (say) a local videophone service (or some other new technology based smart business that haven’t been invented yet) just like a grocery store (or any other business)? Why Govt should have the right to tell what people do for a business (unless it’s a criminal act)?
I understand that a governing body (not necessarily a Govt.) is needed for spectrum management and standardization. But these hard works are done by IEEE/ITU these days. Why would I want my hard earned money to be spent on BTRC instead of maybe electricity or roads etc? Why a poor country needs big Govt. with lots of relatively unnecessary tentacles like BTRC anyway? I bet if telecommunication technology was developed in medieval times then we wouldn’t have any Govt. bodies in this sector.
Lawful communication interception and monitoring can be done by law enforcement agencies within the countries judicial system. And as for earning revenue Govt. can earn revenue through income and corporate taxes, this is directly proportional to the number of people making business and gets employed.
It there is a need to optimize (I don’t like to be regulated) the market the Govt. can always do that latter through appropriate Govt body (for example. FTC or others equivalents). When VoIP was first invented and businesses flourished, there were no laws or restrictions in USA. Later on they optimized the VoIP business markets by putting new laws that standardized some issues making the market more accessible to small business and include E911 services to VoIP networks etc.
Regulation hurts innovation and diversified business, and creates monopolies and oligopolies. What “we” need from “our” pocket money is a body that does not regulate and control the market, rather optimizes it. Govt can optimize market (If the market does not optimize by itself) by setting rules about business and consumer rights, service quality parameters, benchmarks, subsidies, R&D, building /developing new related infrastructures, etc (Chances are ITU/IEEE may already have guidelines about some of those). But these can be done (if it has to be done) by existing Govt bodies (like ICT ministry, Ministry of trade/commerce etc).
Having something like BTRC in a poor and underfunded Govt like Bangladesh in only applicable in maybe North Korea/Cuba and similar other countries.
Shariar
@ Abu Sayeed Khan
Dear Mr. Khan
We seemed to have now moved away from discussing the ILDTS policy to criticising the BTRC for all that it has not done and conjecture about apparent dishonesty and deals being struck. To reiterate, the points on which i was debating with you and asking for your feedback about are the following:
1. ILDTS POlicy and Competition: You have not countered my argument about the (you have also now added it as a dishonest policy although you fail to mention why). Also you did not provide any points to how you can still justify that the three layered system results in higher cost for the user. you fail to provide any rebuttal to the roles of the ICX in number portability and also interconnections.
2. Bypassed calls: You still fail to condemn anyone on doing the actual deed of byassing calls (which you really hate). You fail to mention or admit that the mobile companies themselves were doing something illegal – could it be because LirneAsia is part funded by Telenor TRICAP i.e. a wing of Grameen phone’s parent company? smells a bit funny don’t you think? You have not mentioned HOW the ILDTS policy promotes bypassed calls. If your only logic is to reduce the price differential between international and local calls then you are effectively calling 99% of the worlds telecom regulations as ineffective and promoting bypassed calls – good luck at selling that to the ITU
3. Protection of local industries: you did not provide any response / rebuttal to the laws which i had produced to you in other countries and how they protect local industries. FYI the owner of Bangla Phone is an NRB and not a pure local industry. The company was in violation of what it was permitted to do and what it wasn’t but that does not mean BTRC was wrong to persecute it. The reason, obviously, why the BTRC did not go after GP for the same violation was because GP was not selling this to anyone else but using it internally. Also the case would be against Bangladesh Railway and NOT GP as they were the ones who were leasing the services. I admit that in this regard the government has always, wrongfully, been sympathetic to its own departments violating rules. Also taken into consideration, i presume, was the fact that shutting down the largest telecom operator would not be a feasible course of action – the same reason why US government did not let the largest Car makers and Banks go bankrupt.
I would request you to again answer these and my initial rebuttal on your arguments on their merit.
You say honesty is the best policy – were the mobile operators honest? If not please say it explicitly as you seem to have no problem claiming the BTRC was dishonest.
Rohan Samarajiva
Mr Shariar,
I am intervening because you are questioning LIRNEasia’s integrity. It is a pity because compared to many other debates we have seen on this platform, this has so far been a very civilized one.
To clarify the funding arrangements: LIRNEasia is not funded by TRICAP; its funding comes from IDRC of Canada and DFID of UK. We conduct development research; they pay us for specified deliverables.
In the case of one project, the teleuse @ BOP survey that has been conducted since 2005, TRICAP came in with partner funding (a small percentage of the total) because it was an economical way of getting some additional research done on a large sample across Asia. Their part of the findings (2 questions) was given to them; the rest is fully public. This was a one-time arrangement. We have not made up our minds about doing the survey again.
Long before any of this was negotiated, I made my position on the ILDTS clear by terminating my consulting relationship with the government. I believed then that the policy was doomed to fail (see my later public statement on this at http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=75282). My point was that the government needed to let it run for two years and then review it. Until that was done, there was nothing anyone could do about the overall national policy. Therefore I resigned.
I believe the cause-effect relationships you are suggesting are not supported by the facts. The debate you are conducting is useful and appreciated. But shall we stick to the message without attacking the platform used by the messenger? I used the above language for a reason. LIRNEasia is not the messenger. Mr Abu Saeed Khan is not making any statements on behalf of LIRNEasia. LIRNEasia does not have any positions, other than those in its research-based publications. But it does provide a platform for people like you and Mr Khan to debate important policy issues. So I shall thank you to leave LIRNEasia out of the debate.
Shariar
@ Mr. Samarajiva
Your point noted and I am sorry for the inconvinience. It is indeed noteworthy that you are not censoring forums and thus shows your willingness to be transparent and fair and i really appreciate it.
My frustration stems out of no answers being given by one your members to a question posed repeatedly and also Mr. Khan’s seeming inability to condemn those who have committed a crime as per the law of the land. Furthermore, there seems to be dual standards in the comments from a member of your organisation as there seems to be a ‘bloggers right’ when it comes to accusing the BTRC of corruption without evidence while any private operator is free from such criticism even after clear admission of guilt by them. This would surely seem a bit contradictory to anyone and would give rise to questions. I hope Mr. Khan would rectify this by finally openly condemning those parties who were found guilty through hard evidence and confessional statements and not those parties whose corrpution accusations are based on pure conjecture.
Once again sorry for the misunderstanding as it was (as mentioned in the post) pure conjecture on my part.
Abu Saeed Khan
I cannot help if you choose to deny the correlation between competition and consumers’ interest. Like the bad old days of BTTB’s monopoly, the consumers still lack competitive options to make overseas calls. Multiple gateways, under strictly regulated tariff regime, haven’t brought any joy to the consumers. The fact remains that 40% of the overseas call are being bypassed in Bangladesh. This undesirable phenomenon unequivocally proves that ILDTS Policy is conducive to bypass. Therefore, the ILDTS is a failed policy by any standard.
Number portability is irrelevant in a market where the regulator is complacent on substandard QoS. Consumers dump an operator and forego the phone number as soon as someone else offers cheaper airtime. Because the QoS remains equally bad among all networks. BTRC has never bothered to conduct any survey or public consultation to figure out if the consumers are ready to pay the cost of number portability in the first place.
Interconnection exchanges (ICX) without an effective interconnection regime mean nothing to the industry. Recent fallout between the PSTN and mobile providers is just one example: http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=95893. The infamous “mobile-to-mobile” still exists only in Bangladesh. Because the state-owned BTCL, which is also an ICX, refuses interconnection to its PSTN network.
Neither the ILDTS policy nor the ICX license has succeeded to resolve fundamental flaws of the industry. Because it captures the institutional hegemony the then military establishment. That’s why the false satisfaction of enriching the exchequer overshadows the consumers’ interest and competition.
I am not sure about your lingual standard of condemnation. Of course the leading mobile operators have been caught while illegally terminating and originating the overseas traffic violating the law. And the consequences of such violation are clearly stated in the telecoms law. But BTRC paid no respect to the law and opted for extra-legal financial settlements. That questions the regulator’s integrity and moral authority.
Protectionism is nothing but a neo-nationalistic perversion being practiced to preserve nothing but self-interest with the façade of patriotism. Whatever big and powerful a country may be – protectionism remains a great sin.
I have never made any reference to shutdown any mobile operator for violating the law. Therefore, your sympathy for Grameenphone on selling the fibre capacity without any license is irrelevant.
You claimed to have “worked” in BTRC for five years (God knows at what capacity). Giving you the benefit of doubt – I must say that you were either clueless or you decided to remain clueless about the rampant wrongdoings in the industry. Records show that GP, not the Railway, has been always selling the fibre capacity.
Dishonest policy sprouts dishonesty in the industry and that has exactly been happening in Bangladesh. The authorities have been dishonestly handling the operators’ dishonesties in the name of regulation. It just exceeded the limit during the military rule of 2007-08.
Shariar
@ Abu Saeed Khan
How exactly is the ILDTS preventing the consumer rights? By charging revenue for the government under a fixed tariff regime? We have one of the lowest interconnect rates in South Asia and in fact in Asia. How is the ILDTS policy so much against consumer rights in light of this information? If we were to agree with you, in the same merit the government is denying consumer right by charging any importation duty on any essential commodities like food items, cotton, fuel, etc. Etc. Whether bypass is a result of the policy or the result of the failure to implement a policy is a clear and obvious division which you seem to totally overlook. By the same merit, because everywhere in the world people are avoiding taxation all policies are failures? Any other policies you wish to condemn because of failure to implement rather than failure of the policy?
Number portability: How does QoS have anything to do with number portability? Substandard quality of service would mean the consumer will switch network. But due to ABSENCE of number portability people avoid it and instead buy a new SIM or stay with the existing network – both of which are detrimental to the consumer and beneficial only to the operators. If they do switch it is a hassle for them in terms of both letting their contacts know of the change of address. And to claim QoS is equally bad would be an obviously incorrect statement as certain operators have far better service than others – one of the salient reason why GP is such a large market player. If public consultation and survey is what you require then go ahead and I am sure the results would come out in favour of number portability. BTW number portability would be a very low cost service as it is in EVERY country where it is available.
Interconnect exchanges: it is due to the fact that operators DID NOT comply with the interconnect requirement and connect to the ICXs that the problems remain. Also your article refers to the point where the PSTN operators had not cleared their dues which were incurred PRIOR to the presence of the ICXs which were not cleared. With the presence of the ICXs the PSTN and smaller operators now have a much more streamlined method of reaching ALL operators. How this is so hard to decipher is beyond me. As for BTCL not offering interconnects – that has more to do with BTCL’s own capacity constraints due to bureaucratic processes rather than ineffective regime. Also a big newsflash to you (which is a surprise as you are apparently very aware of the regulatory developments in Bangladesh telecoms) – ‘mobile to mobile only‘ no longer exists in Bangladesh. All mobile phones can now call any number thanks to this new regime. More importantly because of the new regime these mobile to mobile phones can now receive international calls which were impossible to reach before unless terminated through grey. As far as different tariffs for off-net and on-net traffic goes- that is common practice in ALL countries in the world and across all operators.
BTRC Fines and Mobile operators pursuing illegal activity: so let me understand this correctly – you have a bigger problem with the fact that the BTRC punished the wrongdoers more than the inadequate legal framework did (which is only 5 lakh taka fine) than the fact that someone was doing the crime. The BTRC is at fault because they did not cancel their licenses but charged them a large amount of fines which went to the government exchequer? The CTG BTRC was corrupt because they collected the highest ever fine in Bangladesh’s history from a foreign company for violating the laws of the land? Perhaps you can answer me this: if the BTRC were corrupt why didn’t they just collect the bribe money and follow the rule and fine them 5 lacs. I am sure the operators and the corrupt BTRC personnel would have settled for a bribe exchange of 100 crore or something similar rather than fine of 838 crore. Your statement lacks reasoning in this context. Also regarding the correct language for condemnation would be ‘corrupt’, ‘sin’ and ‘rampant wrongdoings’ would do – basically the same standard with which you slate the CTG BTRC without proof. All institutions are equal but some are more equal than others in your condemnation it seems.
Protectionism: So your retort for protectionism is that its a great sin? Thats it? My dear Mr. Khan- protectionism is what made the US, Western Europe, India, Japan, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Korea and other leading nations the success that they are. If something ensures the development of your country and the nation – how is that bad? You repeatedly refer to consumer rights – consumer rights is protectionism at a micro level – regulatory protectionism is merely the same thing at a macro level. If protectionism is so bad we should allow all foreign companies to dig freely for oil and gas in the country and let them export however they want at whatever the price. We should also allow companies to recruit foreigners as freely as possible and not develop Bangladeshi workforce – the list is endless. If that is your aim then I have nothing to say as we are from different planets / universes. I fail to understand your obsession with promoting foreign companies in Bangladesh when local firms are more than capable. If you claim they are not – then you assertion that QoS in Bangladesh telecom is poor would also show the foreigners are not doing a bang-up job of it either. When did protectionism become neo-nationalistic? Has it not been in place since the beginning of civilisation? Neo-Nationalism has more to do with race, culture and religion than with economics. Neo-Nationalist parties include parties like the Ku Klux Klan, the British Nationalist Party et. Al. – all of whom have very racist undertones in their statements. How does this relates to protectionism – which is more prevalent in socialist countries like France, Sweden, Germany etc. Or is this some new faux jargon to use to add contrived value an otherwise valueless statement?
My sympathy was not towards GP but merely towards the realities which prevented BTRC from taking the same action that they took against BanglaPhone against GP.
My identity seems to be a constant issue for you and you are not satisfied with my name alone. Perhaps i should send you a CV – please send me your email add and i will do so. I must wanr you up front though – i do not hold a telecom related degree like a BA in Bengali Language and literature like you and thus will surely feel very inferior in comparison when I only have a Computer science degree with an MBA specialisation in Economics. I wonder if you could tell me what career path makes one an expert in telecommunication policy nowadays? I have no background in the literature or any experience in working for Oil and Gas companies or journalism, does that make me underqualified?
I quote you statement:
‘Dishonest policy sprouts dishonesty in the industry and that has exactly been happening in Bangladesh. The authorities have been dishonestly handling the operators’ dishonesties in the name of regulation. It just exceeded the limit during the military rule of 2007-08.’ –
does this statement of yours have any proof or is it pure conjecture? You never mentioned how policy was dishonest or how a policy can be dishonest- policy makers can be but not the other way around. Perhaps I have yet to grasp the full meaning of ‘dishonesty’ and your clarification in this regard would be highly appreciated. As far as the military rule corruption goes: it means the military government was SO corrupt that they conducted the first proper voter registration and gave rise to the current DEMOCRATICALLY elected government and took numerous corrupt politicians to court for their crimes (far more than any other regime has ever done) – if that is corruption then long live corruption as you define it – we could use a bit more of that.
I leave you with expectations of answers to my questions and a quote from Plato
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions.
Abu Saeed Khan
@ Mr. Shariar
The extra-legal and extra-constitutional preclusion of the non-resident Bangladeshis from the licensing regime is fundamental dishonesty of ILDTS policy. The extra-judicial financial punishments were executed through negotiations. Moreover, a huge sum of public fund was misappropriated by BTRC in the name of bonus.
These issues have nothing to do with the national ID card project. Achievements never justify misconducts. Therefore, the success of ID card project doesn’t justify the government’s wrongdoings in telecoms sector.
I am not at all keen to explore your identity. You have claimed to be a BTRC official for five years and I wanted to know what you did over there. Please pardon me if that’s an offence and you are most welcome to keep it secret.
You certainly have superior academic feat and I am honored to have this debate with you. And you have questioned my wisdom to discuss public policy. That’s your prerogative. As far as I am concerned, I have made all points clear in this long debate. You may disagree but I cannot help anymore.
Shariar
@ Mr. Abu Saeed Khan
Thank you for your reply. I think i have already mentioned the clauses regarding the exclusion of NRBs above but more importantly I think should always get second priority to locals as we are sticking it out in our country rather than going abroad for a better life. With regards to BTRC missapropriation – I consider it proper allocation of bonuses for good performance = All government departments should have bonus mechanisms and also bigger salaries. As i mentioned before, if the chairman was misappropriating the funds – why did the finance ministry approve its disbursement? Why did he announce it? He could have taken the money, hidden it, and used the current ‘golden 10% money whitening bonanza scheme’ to clean it no questions asked.
Regarding my identity and knowing about what i did at the BTRC- your first retort was whether my name was real -that is what struck me as rather inappropriate especially when there is now mechanism to check whether Abu Saeed Khan is indeed commenting or someone else. Moreover i expected the comments to be taken at their own merit and not based on what I did at BTRC. I think i have shown i, as have you, know enough about the policy to debate on it.
Sadiq Mehdi
Message to “Shariar” aka Manzurul Alam: Major-General, much of what you did as BTRC Chairman at the beginning was admirable. But much of what you did was not. Had you been above serious criticism, you may have remained longer in BTRC. As it is, you left under a cloud, and it is justified to judge your comments by their provenance.
TheInsider
Finally, someone has the guts to reveal that @Shariar is a true BTRC insider, responsible at least partially for the lack of progress of BTRC activities. But this is a forum for a good debate. We need to move forward the regulation of the telecom sector in Bangladesh. So I hope Mr Alam continues to take part in this debate instead of getting defensive.
Shariar
@Theinsider and @Sadiq Mehdi
Bhai if you indeed think I am Gen. Manjurul Alam then thank you for your compliment as i truly admire the man for what he has done for the BTRC and the country. Alas i operated on an ad-hoc basis and i stopped as i got a job in a different company. But I am curious though as to why the identity of a commentor is of so importance? After all ‘theinsider’, ‘amar, ‘rainyday’ are all pen names being used without being prejudiced about their identity. Nobody, including myself, are claiming that these people are possibly CEOs of the Mobile operators, they could be the journalists, they could be Terrorists, they could be teachers – who knows what – that is the beauty of the internet debates- anonymous debates without stereotype-afflicted bias.
And i am sorry if i sound defensive but i was just doing my part in the debate – rebutting the arguments of my fellow commentator.
PS: Gen Manjur was an ex-signals army man and not a computer science grad with MBA.
Amar
@Shariar and @ Abu Saeed Khan
Any of you guys have any information about Augere wimax’s pricing?
rainyday
who will use wimax? dont every already have a gp/aktel/blink internet? wimax hardware cant be cheaper than existing gsm hardware (at best on a par). as far as i know wimax (128 kbps) will be slower than existing GP and banglalink (about 160kbps) service. and neither wimax/gsm are standard broadband.
i doubt wimax/3g can provide boradband any time soon. it’s out of provider’s hand and onto govt’s hand (which im sure some people reading this forum seem to appreciate). so what’s the point.
Abu Saeed Khan
@ Amar
Augure is yet to announce its pricing. But on July 20 the Financial Times said Augere will charge US$10 per month without referring to the speed. Augure CEO Sanjiv Ahuja expects EBITDA break-even in three years (2012). Five percent of pre-tax profits will be given to charities. Augure has secured $125 million of initial funding from France Telecom, as well as from New Silk Route and Vedanta Capital, which are New York-based private equity and venture capital firms, respectively. It remains unclear if Augure has paid the $31 million Bangladesh WiMax license fee from the $125 million it has borrowed. Full report is here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/46d3de66-74c4-11de-8ad5-00144feabdc0.html
LIRNEasia is hiring: Communications Intern
LIRNEasia is seeking a talented individual to join the team as a Communications Intern. The full job description is available here.
Sri Lanka needs policy reforms to align with evolving digital economy: LIRNEasia Senior Research Manager Gayani Hurulle
Gayani Hurulle, Senior Research Manager at LIRNEasia, recently discussed the challenges facing Sri Lanka’s digital economy in an interview with Yarl TV. Gayani highlighted various policy challenges and opportunities pertaining to the digital economy, drawing on LIRNEasia’s research.
Exploring AI’s transformative potential: LIRNEasia launches ‘AI for Social Good’ workshop series
LIRNEasia concluded its first workshop (30 March, 24’), its first and part of a larger series of initiatives on ‘Artificial Intelligence for Social Good’; intended to raise interest and awareness on the potential of AI to benefit society at large. The event featured a keynote speech by Dr.
Links
User Login
Themes
Social
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Contact
12, Balcombe Place, Colombo 08
Sri Lanka
+94 (0)11 267 1160
+94 (0)11 267 5212
info [at] lirneasia [dot] net
Copyright © 2024 LIRNEasia
a regional ICT policy and regulation think tank active across the Asia Pacific