The views of the unnamed ‘expert’ on telecom charges, etc (Business Times, Oct 31, 2010) calls for a response because of its factual inaccuracies.
To say that subscribers of one operator are forced to pay higher call charges is wrong. Price controls hardly exist on open markets. The subscribers are free to choose the package that serves them best. If fixed charges are high in general, there is always mobile, which offers the same and much more. Nobody is forced to pay anything. The word ‘forced’ would have been apt only for the tax on telecom services, as no exemption is possible.
The number of landline telephones is dropping worldwide. Ten years ago, every 100 inhabitants in the developed world had 57 fixed telephones but now it is less than 50. The professed increase locally is attributed to the introduction of CDMA, which is typically considered a mobile technology. Fixed phones are preferred to mobiles in government offices only because of the supposed difficulties in controlling the abuse of the latter. Residential usage of fixed phones is dropping. So high fixed phone charges is not a serious concern to public; high mobile phone charges certainly is.
The other suggestion, liberalizing the bandwidth of the ‘ubiquitous’ copper wire (aka Local Loop Unbundling) will not have an impact on ADSL prices, as the copper wire is not ubiquitous here as in UK. Sri Lanka has less than 800,000 landline telephones and more than half would have been for government offices and non- data users. So we will hardly reap the benefits British Telecom did, with a significant penetration.
In fact, a similar question was raised by the senior engineer Mr. K. K. Gunawardene at one of LIRNEasia’s seminars held at the Institute of Engineers in March 2008. This followed a verbal and later a lengthy web discussion still available at www.lirneasia.net in which I have explained in detail why it will not work locally.
(Wattegama is an independent telecom policy researcher. He can be contacted at chanuka@unapcit.org). |
E-mail
