{"id":11436,"date":"2013-03-27T08:56:55","date_gmt":"2013-03-27T13:56:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ict-pulse.com\/?p=11436"},"modified":"2013-03-27T08:56:55","modified_gmt":"2013-03-27T13:56:55","slug":"telecoms-regulation-lagging-caribbean","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ict-pulse.com\/2013\/03\/telecoms-regulation-lagging-caribbean\/","title":{"rendered":"Is telecoms regulation lagging behind in the Caribbean?"},"content":{"rendered":"
Caribbean countries have made considerable strides in developing their telecoms sector. In some instances, the services available are on par with that of more developed countries. However, has the telecoms industry outpaced regulation?<\/em><\/p>\n <\/a>In this week\u2019s news roundup, the Vice-President (VP) of Marketing and Communications of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC), Marlon Johnson, was reported to have expressed the view that \u2018t<\/i>he current regulatory framework governing the communications sector was no longer adequate <\/i>\u2018 (Source: Tribune 242<\/a>). Although the regulatory framework in the Bahamas is around four years old, Mr. Johnson readily acknowledged that the local sector has evolved considerably over the last few years, and should precipitate a revisit of the existing framework:<\/p>\n Our contention is that the current regime is actually restricting it, because some of the rules are too prohibitive and are not facilitating growth. They were appropriate\u00a0when they were crafted, but they are no longer appropriate now, so that framework needs to change. (Source: Tribune 242<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Mr. Johnson set out a number of arguments relevant to the situation in the Bahamas to support his position, which many of us might draw similar conclusions. However, should we be of a similar view with respect to\u00a0whether or not telecoms regulation in the wider Caribbean has kept pace with the needs of the sector in the respective countries?<\/p>\n Traditionally telecoms regulation has focussed almost exclusively on the voice market, specifically the establishment of\u00a0networks and the provision of\u00a0voice services only. Typically, the networks involved were either fixed Public Switched Telecoms Networks (PSTN) also called POTS (Plain Old Telephone System), and subsequently, mobile\/cellular networks. In the 35-plus years since telecoms regulation began in earnest, there is extensive literature on virtually all aspects of overseeing PSTN and mobile\/cellular networks \u2013 from academic studies and best practice, to formal standards and regulatory models.<\/p>\n Mainstream take-up and use of the Internet commenced around 20 years ago. However, the breadth and depth of guidance to regulate that market is incredibly limited. \u00a0Hence, although the Internet has become increasingly integral for both voice and data communications, appropriate (national) regulatory frameworks to govern this medium are still limited.<\/p>\n Ideally, competitive markets are most desirable in telecoms, as well as in other sectors. Experts are generally of the view that \u201ceffective competition\u201d can address key aspects of a sector, such as pricing, choice and service quality, without the need for regulatory intervention. However, regulation may be necessary when transitioning to a competitive environment, since it aims to mimic competition where it might not otherwise exist.<\/p>\n Having said this, does\u00a0having two or more players in a particular market mean that there is effective competition and regulation is no longer needed?\u00a0 The short answer is no. In many countries, even in the Caribbean, there has been a growing trend for regulators to set interconnection charges for the termination of calls on mobile\/cellular networks for all carriers in that market, which in turn affects consumer pricing. However, to date, Caribbean regulators have offered little or no intervention in the Internet market, which could improve, among other things, pricing, transmission speeds, and overall service quality.<\/p>\n In Mr. Johnson\u2019s arguments for revising telecoms regulation in the Bahamas, he noted that the traditional cable provider was now offering Internet and telephone services. Additionally, his company, the BTC, in addition to offering telephone, mobile\/cellular and Internet services, was also planning to enter the television market.<\/p>\n Although conventional regulation might have no difficulty with a telecoms company offering a variety of services, historically and for the most part, they would have required their own networks, and hence would be treated separately. However, thanks to advances in technology, a number of different\u00a0services can be\u00a0carried over the same medium. Hence infrastructural costs can be\u00a0shared across the services, and usually there would only be an incremental cost to add another service to the suite that network might already be supporting. A good example of this is a coaxial cable network, which can carry television, telephone, and broadband Internet services without the considerable expense that three separate providers might incur to provide\u00a0the individual services.<\/p>\n Hence, when there is a common network offering multiple services, and similar to what obtain\u00a0regarding Internet regulation, there is limited\u00a0guidance available as to\u00a0how regulation should be applied under those circumstances.<\/p>\nVoice versus data regulation<\/h3>\n
Competition versus regulatory intervention<\/h3>\n
Multi-play regimes and regulation<\/h3>\n
Universal Access and Universal Service<\/h3>\n