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

Any of you guys have any information about Augere wimax’s pricing?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.