
To harvest the potential of the Internet, a metamedium that allows one to retrieve information on a plethora of topics, to publish information, to engage in transactions, including payment, to remotely compute and so on, ubiquitous broadband is the necessary precondition. Today, for the most part, telecom is a consumption good, a way to spend money in return for various utilities.
In the next stage, telecom will become a production good, a way to make or save money. Today it takes money from our pockets; tomorrow, if things are done right, it will put money in our pockets or at least keep more money from leaving the pocket.
To make broadband ubiquitous and the Internet an integral part of all interactions and transactions, we need a new wave of investment in networks and services by the current telecom operators and by new service providers, larger than that which solved the voice connectivity problem. The analogy is to roads. Today we have the equivalent of the network of “A” roads across the country.
The voice-connectivity problem is solved in Sri Lanka. There are somewhere in the range of 14 million connections active for a population of 20 million. Even those who do not have a phone in their own homes can reach one easily. Prices are among the lowest in the world. Quality leaves something to be desired, but is a tractable problem.
To get from congested roads (current telecom network) to expressways (ubiquitous broadband), significant investment is required. We got to the present level of narrowband connectivity not because of government investment, but because the government pulled back and allowed the private sector to invest with a modicum of regulatory certainty.
What is needed for the next leap is also just that: a decent regulatory environment in which investors can make business plans that are likely to have some semblance to reality; taxes and levies that do not change from year to year; the basic requirements of adequate and timely spectrum, access to rights of way and tower locations; non-discriminatory and cost-based access to essential facilities such as cable stations; some basic level of regulation of anti-competitive practices. If these things are there, the investments will be made.
With the country likely to achieve six percent growth rates for the next few years without any trouble http://lbo.lk/fullstory.php?nid=1448881241, the perception is that there is money to be made. Investments will happen. Further, there’s Arab money looking for parking places, Indian money looking for a place to put the first exploratory foot down, Chinese money looking to lessen the dependence on the US and so on.
The government does not need to decide on the services that will be offered or even set the standards except for interacting with government. The decentralized innovation process known as the market will look after all that, as long as there is adequate entry and minimum safeguards against monopolization.
So the picture looks good.
The only problem is that the basic precondition of a decent regulatory environment has been eroded.
The Telecom Regulatory Commission has become the opposite of what it was intended to be. Instead of shielding investors from the arbitrary actions of government, it has become the instrument of arbitrary and capricious action. Vetath niyarath goyam ka nam . . . It has become one of the principal revenue earners for the government:
It is shocking that a regulatory agency is generating more revenue for the government than the Port and the Petroleum Corporation. Perhaps it is time to rename the TRC as the Telecom Revenue Commission.
This is money extracted from the industry through spectrum and various regulatory fees that have been doubled and quadrupled over the past few years. This does not include the special taxes levied directly from customers through the telecom operators such as the 10 percent telecom (originally mobile) levy http://lbo.lk/fullstory.php?nid=202991115, and the money extracted to support the many expenses of the Environment Ministry http://lbo.lk/fullstory.php?nid=1625942485. Of every rupee spent by a customer on telecom, around 30 cents is extracted by the government http://lbo.lk/fullstory.php?nid=544920901.
The TRC is raising revenue, but perhaps it is also doing a decent job regulating? Perhaps we can call it the Telecom Revenue and Regulatory Commission? Unfortunately not. By allowing the President’s Office to impose a sender-keeps-all interconnection regime on the industry and by not taking action to control the explosion of international bypass traffic that resulted from this ill-considered act, the TRC has allowed the generation of large amounts of black money and deprived both legitimate operators and the government of revenue.
From a situation where all operators were making healthy profits, the inaction and bad actions of the TRC have brought the industry to a state where none are making profits, not even Sri Lanka Telecom, which used to make money even when government-owned.
One company losing money for one quarter is that company’s fault; but the blame for all companies losing money over multiple quarters must be laid at the door of the regulatory agency.
In addition, the TRC has become the direct instrument of bringing politics into the industry, as evidenced by the infamous free-of-charge new-year’s day SMS from one presidential candidate that was sent at the behest of the former Director General. This is described as administrative expropriation http://lirneasia.net/2010/01/administrative-expropriation-in-practice-how-regulators-can-ruin-the-investment-climate/, and exactly what regulatory agencies were created to prevent.
The previous Director General was unqualified to head a regulatory agency and he did things that were not authorized under the Act. He should have been removed for those reasons, but was not. He was asked to go for purely political reasons.
The new Director General is going to run the TRC on a part-time basis, in addition to running the government information department. He too does not appear to have any special expertise in telecommunication or in regulation. With the part-time, ex officio Chair being the most over-burdened official in the country, the Secretary to the President, one wonders who is actually going to run the TRC. Or perhaps the thinking is that it is beyond redemption. Is it that the Special Committee to Develop Broadband http://www.dailynews.lk/epaper/art.asp?id=2010/02/03/Pg08_1&pt=p&h= is seen as an adequate substitute.
In these circumstances, it is difficult to envisage how the next wave of investments needed to allow the people of Sri Lanka to harvest the benefits of the Internet economy will materialize. It is difficult to see how the telecom sector can make its essential contribution to making Sri Lanka a five-fold hub unless governance is improved, not just by improving the management of the regulatory agency, but by bringing in a new Act to replace the current obsolete and failed statute. If the government is serious about the telecom sector contributing to the five-fold hub plan, it has to grasp the nettle and fix the dysfunctional telecom regulatory regime.
Thus ends the first attempt to discuss economic reform with governance deemphasized http://lbo.lk/fullstory.php?nid=645840595#cm. I failed; but will continue to try.
Rohan Samarajiva heads LirneAsia, a regional think tank. He was also a former telecoms regulator in Sri Lanka. To read previous columns go to the main navigation panel and click on 'Choices' category.
Being politically ignorant is bad enough. Being an economic ignorance is worst. In this country business is bad, making profit is bad, mudalalis are bad, vegetable transporters are bad and regulators should work for the benefit of consumer (defined as the lowest cost to consumer, hell with the industry—their employees, shareholders, suppliers and other stakeholders).
Mr Trinesh Perera, you demonstrated your eligibility for PhD in this specialized field with the comment below. You have mentioned that one needs not to be an educate person to be a regulator. Well, we had a sales professional as telecom regulator and see what mess he had created. You praise him for allowing tariff to plunge. Great, provided that’s the only aim of a regulator.
The key responsibility of an industry regulator is to provide a policy framework to facilitate a sustained industry growth. Creating a competitive market environment is only one aspect of it. Competition keeps checks on price escalations and brings Markey-led price corrections. The growth, sustained growth, brings continued value to consumers.
When an industry grows profitably, it enhances its ability to reinvest and bring increased value to consumers. Our Cellular industry grew from analog to dialog and from 1G to 2G to 2.5 G to 3 G because operators continued to invest on new technology as they foresaw profitable growth. Such industries also attract new players thereby enhancing the competition.
It would be interesting to see how many mobile operators would now invest on 4G given the current blood bath. If the current state of industry continues those consumers who expect zero tariff could see the signal bar in their hands sets diminishes as the network infrastructure crumbles down due to lack of investments.
I, for one, would not suggest that regulators would interfere with price competition. If the operator would like to eat each other to death that is their problem. But it is the responsibility of the operator to maintain a tariff policy framework that would maintain a healthy tariff structure.
The sender-keeps-it-all tariff favors small operators who dump calls at low rates on large operators who had the burden of carrying such calls without any revenue to them. (Setting up few towers in a town, enlist few thousand subscribers and dumping calls on large networks would be a very promising business model)
What has the former regulator done to correct this anomaly? Once that is corrected you might see significant appreciation of rates.
I completely disagree that any head mounted on a moving body could regulate a sophisticated industry such as telecom. Least I expect from a Telecom regulator is:
• Domain knowledge and ability understand industry dynamics
• Ability appreciate economics of the industry
• Intellect to understand the competing demands of public policy, technology, consumer preferences and operators
For your enlighten I am giving below links to bio-data of two of the top US regulators- FCC and Federal Reserve System.
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/genachowski/biography.html
http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/board/bernanke.htm
What we need are people of such capabilities and stature, not former Sales Representatives who dream to shoot satellites to immortalize their political masters.
Key excerpts:
"Meanwhile, Mr. Weerasinghe also noted that the local industry faced several issues in 2008/2009, with Dialog itself cutting its capital expenditure budget by as much as 60% last year to account for irrational price cutting by all players in the local market. Some bottlenecks he specified included lack of proper back hall connectivity, a need for basic floor prices to stop irrational price cutting, greater agreement among operators on interconnectivity and a proper regulatory framework, the latter highlighted recently by Fitch which ranked the country as having the highest regulatory risk in South Asia. Added to this were his comments that Dialog experienced the lowest revenue generation in 2008/2009, which no doubt implied a similar situation for others in the local market.
Mirroring Mr. Weerasinghe's sentiments was another speaker at the Sri Lanka Telecom Summit; Vajira Jayasinghe, Chief Technology Officer of Dialog's fixed line and CDMA rival Suntel, who indicated that stagnating revenues and skyrocketing costs were causing a “bad patch” for a local industry already being weighed down by 'insane' price cutting and close to 50% tax on revenues, which he clarified to mean the sum of all taxes on telecommunications and not just those paid to the Inland Revenue office.
Interestingly both personalities indicated that they made these remarks off the cuff as they did not expect to speak at the event and only intended to serve as panelists for the event’s inaugural interactive session with the audience."
-A quote from Mao's red book
In the comments you are trying to compare the tarriff rates vs the current tarrfi rates. But 3-4 years back the investment in network rollout programs was too expensive. Your comparison does not mean that operators earned more than 10 rupees profit per minute.
But I agree that they earned some profit. That encouraged all operators and investors on new telecom projects. That was a reason why we are so ahead in telecommunication in service and quility wise. But we can not expect the same in future as all operators are very struggling to make profits. There is no time to think of investing than thinking in surviving.
I am sure Dialog or Mobitel can not take the risk of investing on the next generation technologies as they have not received the ROI of HSPA rollout.
This is the same for Mobile/Fixed/ISP/VPN services as all our running on the transmission and MPLS networks..
Government need to think on this seriosly. Dialog has already make a loss of 12 Bn for 2009. I know that SLT, Suntel, Lankabell and all operators are badly struggling....
Open for any discussion.
Telecom is an industry. Any industry needs to make profits for its own sustainability. But, due to poor regulation in our country, telecom price elasticity is completely lost. This is very bad for the industry. All operators are running at a lost.
Some big foreign investors are finding ways to get out of the investment, just as Millicom selling Tigo to Etisalat. Couple of other two investors are looking for buyers. If it continues this way, the investors will call it an end and wind down the operations. No one wants to keep on pumping money to any business without seeing any potential in an industry.
So, its high time, the regulator think of a mechanism to help the telecom investors to run a profitable businesses in Sri Lanka. If not, the telecom users will have to pay a bigger penalty in the near future..!!
About, the TRC DGs... its extremely sad to see the president appointing personnel who have absolutely no knowledge in Telecommunication to the TRC DG post. This has caused the whole industry to be driven by individuals/businesses who has personal interests on private gains. When the DG has no idea about telecom industry, he will obviously play to someone else's tune. If this continues, very soon the government will regret of killing the golden chicken.
What is the justification when operators can charge Rs 10-12 vs now Rs 1.50-2 per min. So they were making huge profits and people never benefited. Don't think that you have to be a telecom or regulator expert to run TRC. Was it best cricketers administered the Sri Lanka Cricket to the high levels. I agree that we need a full time DG to TRC
All Rights Reserved.

