← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

By Chris Halsall with contributions from Douglas Skeete

IN any jurisdiction, companies operate ultimately under the legislation created by a central authority, i.e. the Government. Therefore, the argument can easily be made that this authority must seek to devise, and more importantly enforce, legislation preventing companies from inhibiting the development of liberalization and fair competition.

Publicly traded companies (those listed on one or more stock markets) tend to act particularly aggressively, as they are dependent upon ever greater profits in order to raise their share price. Their executives’ remuneration packages are invariably tied to this, and often current (and ex-) employees hold a number of shares as well.

The stock market is a harsh mistress. Therefore a public company’s primary concern is about “making the numbers” for the next quarter – everything else is secondary. Stock prices have even been known to fall when a Company does manage to make their numbers, but do not “exceed analysis’ expectations”.

There’s nothing wrong with this, of course. To the contrary – it is raw capitalism at its purest; the most effective form of wealth creation ever devised by humans. But it must be appreciated and understood: capitalism is heartless, and companies feed upon their markets.

It is therefore important that in any marketplace rules and enforcement exist which prevent companies from making unreasonable and unfair profits, as they will not by nature constrain themselves. Companies should be symbiotic with their marketplaces (their ecosystems), rather than being parasitic. This is where the law and the enforcement of same come in.

Cable & Wireless (C&W) has had a long-time presence in Barbados and the Caribbean, and have aggressively acquired units of telecommunications companies throughout the region. In 1991 they purchased the remaining government owned shares in BET and BARTEL, the international and domestic telephone service companies respectively, and received an exclusive license to operate these services until 2011, creating a legal (if not natural) monopoly.

However, because of the pressures of globalization, and being signatories to WTO, CARICOM, GATS, et al, the Government of Barbados renegotiated its license with C&W to introduce liberalization early. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed in 2001 which defined a three phase timetable for “Full liberalization” in exchange for concessions. The final phase, International Voice, was supposed to have been completed by 2003, but in fact was delayed until 2005.

So here we are now in 2008, and really not much has happened. Yes, we now have competition in mobile telephony, but after the initial excitement of a marketplace with a total of three competing providers, one has now left our market leaving a duopoly situation with prices for almost all services still much higher than they could and should be.

A consumer still cannot pick up the phone and make an international call using a competitive carrier of their choice. And while consumer-grade “high-speed” internet is much more widely deployed, because C&W continue to have control of the “last mile copper” they remain the dominate provider, other providers have to use wireless (an inherently limited means of transport) or rent service from C&W at an uncompetitive rate.

Anger about this situation should not be directed at C&W, it should be leveled squarely upon the government and its regulatory and enforcement functions. The question is not why C&W are doing what they’re doing, but why they are allowed to get away with it.

Fundamentally, Barbados and the entire Caribbean, is being held back from developing as quickly as we could. In today’s connected world, telecommunications are as critical to development as access to any traditional infrastructure.

Money is flowing out of the pockets of our people, and into the coffers of C&W which is 81 per cent owned by C&W (West Indies) which is in turn owned by C&W PLC.

Fifty two (52) million dollars flowed out of Barbados to England last year alone simply in dividends, not to mention various other consulting fees and service charges.

It is therefore hoped that this new government will take the progress of true liberalization appropriately seriously. Some hard questions need to be asked as to why things have been allowed to progress so slowly.

Are the Telecommunications Unit and Fair Trading Commission understaffed? Why are the laws and policies which exist not being enforced? One might even go so far as to ask for a forensic review.

Barbados must liberalize – it is part of our obligation as signatories of the WTO, among other agreements. It has been demonstrated elsewhere that it is in fact better for the marketplace as a whole. And the quicker this happens, the more competitive we and our people will be.

Please note that this article was to have been published in the Barbados Advocate Business Monday 2008.03.17, and while it was edited by a writer from the same publication to be more palatable, it did not actually find itself in said publication.  Something about the fear of being sued.  Or, perhaps, the risk of losing advertising revenue…

Here is the link to Chris’s blog on this and other telecommunications matters.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

69 responses to “Government To Blame For C&W Stranglehold”


  1. […] should give Minister of Tourism Richard Sealy an instant migraine. In recent days we have had the announcement that British Telecommunications giant will be slashing 1200 in the Caribbean. One day later, Walsh […]


  2. @Chris

    We understand the objective of creating an environment where the price of telecom services can be unbundled at the best rate. The point which we are making however is that there is no vendor which can truly compete with C&W currently because of its entrenched position. We don’t see the market moving to a point anytime soon where C&W will have a competitor which is in its same weight class.

    In the meantime the FTC should make sure that C&W’s bundled services are reduced to reflect some fair position which is predetermined.


  3. I beginning to smell a clique discussion developing on BU. Is this a negrocratic development?
    Just wondering aloud. Enjoy the rest of your weekend, David, ROK and Chris.


  4. @The Scout

    Please tell us what you mean by clique? If you read an earlier comment on this particular blog you would have read that we thanked ROK, Chris and Adrian for commenting on this very technical matter. We have weighted in to have some matters clarified and you are equally welcome to do so.

    We hope that you can explain the clique comment because it is the first that we have heard of it.


  5. @ROK et al…

    Just to follow up on your above… Agreed, we are very closely aligned. But not perfectly… (smile.)

    The question as to who owns the “copper plant” is a complex one. And just from fundamentals, I don’t believe government can _run_ complex systems well. Thus, I would prefer that the plant remains in commercial hands.

    Now, importantly from my above, I’m not saying C&W automatically gets to keep it. Nor am I saying the Gov. can’t own it, and then lease it to an operator.

    I view practically all “Layer Zero” assets/plant as being a “public good”, which operators should use at the sufferance of, and to the benefit of, the people. This includes radio spectrum, utility poles and utility conduits et al.

    The complex issue is who actually paid to have installed what parts of the “plant”. When? What is a fair price to pay for access? Is this access at that price being made available to competitors? And, lastly, is the “owner” of the route charging themselves at the same price?

    It is an extremely complex issue, which requires an huge amount of (non-public) data. While it’s good to discuss it here on the Blogs, I’m afraid it’s not going to be solved here.


  6. @David: “In the planning for deregulation which would have anticipated possible new entrants in the fix line sector with a demand to possibly used the pole plant in Barbados, are you saying no provision has been made for this in the telecoms regs?”

    Correct David. There are *no* provisions in the telecommunications act, nor any existing policies, which details how competitors might access the existing copper plant.

    This topic has a tendency to explode in complexity once you start to drill down. I’m going to meditate on an article, and will let you all know when it’s available.


  7. @ Chris

    You mentioned something which I had almost forgotten; that the telephone for the most part run on electric poles. I see very few telephone poles nowadays.

    What is happening here? I am wondering if C&W pays for use of those poles. There is a fund which pays for electric poles. Need to check on that again.

    The other thing I forgot is that while the copper plant may belong to C&W it is on State lands. I remember a statement made where it was said to the effect that: you may have the wire but you don’t pay for the land it is on. We own the land so you can’t pick it up either without paying.


  8. @ Chris

    I see we get accused of conspiring but that is not going to stop me from being curious.

    I note your statement: “Correct David. There are *no* provisions in the telecommunications act, nor any existing policies, which details how competitors might access the existing copper plant.”

    I think this would be imbedded in agreements to which the FTC has oversight under the Fair Competition and Unfair Trading practices Acts if I am not mistaken and Digicel has already used this route against C&W. The FTC has declared both Pine Hill Dairy and C&W declared guilty of unfair practices or competition is separate cases against these.

    I know the report on the PHD is still reported on the FTC site but I realise that the C&W one disappeared. Hope that was a technical error and it will go back up in the FTC decisions.


  9. @ROK… I learnt from an engineer *far* smarter than myself: you must *never* forget “Layer Zero”.

    If I may go geeky for a moment… In networking terms (OSI model et al), “Layer One” is the “Physical Layer” — the copper wire, the glass fibre…

    Interestingly, however, Layer Zero isn’t actually documented. Even though it’s critical (and often very expensive) — it’s the physical route and space within which Layer One is placed.

    Never forget Layer Zero…

    I’m afraid I can’t actually answer your questions in your immediate above, because my knowledge of the variables is derived from proprietary sources.

    However, it would be *very* useful to determine what public domain data is available locally on this. Perhaps you and/or Hallam could compose a letter to the FTC? (Note that this would be the start of the process — the FTC can’t answer because they don’t know.)


  10. @ROK… Just to be pedantic (because I find I have to be sometimes)…

    My answer to David was very specific. The Telecoms Act does not include any mechanisms for competitive access to existing plant.

    Any prior work and documentation under other acts that you can bring forward to this discussion / knowledge transfer, the better, and greatly appreciated.

    I know some things by way of some prior work which prevent me personally from discussion / exploring certain domains…


  11. Well there are several funds that pay for electric poles. There is a rural development fund which is tapped by UDC, RDC and MTW. Poverty Alleviation fund has also paid for poles.

    I am not sure what happens in the case of replacement poles.


  12. Have to say I like the concept of “layer zero”. Reminds of the phrase “grund norm”; no mis-spelling there but it means a principle from which other principles flow.


  13. @ROK… OK, but are these subsidised poles part of the main network, or “leaf” poles out serving only one (or a very few number of) consumer(s)?

    Some of the interesting (and explosive) questions are — for any pole: who paid for it? When? How much revenue was derived from that *one* pole? How much of it already been paid for from the above revenue?

    This is particularly important when the pole is “owned” by a current (or prior) monopoly, and/or it is on public land…


  14. As far as I know BL&P demands payment for every pole, even if they charge all the customers feeding from it.

    If C&W also using these poles and paying to do so, then BL&P got a business on the side or they both going scotch free. If the latter is the case, it would be good to see what C&W claiming for pole expenses???


  15. @ Chris

    The other matter would be MTW’s use of these poles. Do they use them for signage free of charge as well?


  16. I have read the contributions of of the people knowledgeable in the telecommunications industry carefully and do not pretend to understand all the ramifications.

    One question keeps recurring as a result of all that I read. What motivated the previous administration, C & W having been thwarted in its attempt to implement a metered system, seemingly bend over backwards to help it to ensure high profitability by way of the PCM, to the detriment of the people of Barbados and over the objections, to the point of resignation of the very people appointed to look after the interest of those consumers?

    And following on to that, does the present administration feel any need to address the situation?


  17. @Inkwell… Thank you. You have brought the fundamental questions forward…


  18. We have news for C&W, to compare the rebranding exercise to that of Mutual, CIBC/Barclays or BWIA is simplistic and foolish. If this is the rationale then C&W must think the region for a fool. Those other companies rebranded for totally different reasons compared to C&W.

    Added to the fact that they are not monopolies. Despite the deregulation in the telecoms market C&W provides the backbone for the telecom services current and to come.

    Added we have frustration by respective markets targeting C&W about their anti-competitive practices. Changing their name to Pork LIME will not remove the frustration, suspicion and distrust which the market currently has for C&W.

    Mr. JULIAN ROGERS, PLEASE TELL US HOW MANY MILLIONS THIS REBRANDING EXERCISE WILL COST?
    COULDN’T THIS MONEY HAVE BEEN BETTER SPENT IMPROVING BROAD BAND?

    We are sure that this matter will be discussed in the blogosphere in the coming weeks and months.

    C&W set for rebranding Nation – Published on: 9/26/08.
    by GERALYN EDWARD EXIT CABLE & WIRELESS (C&W), enter LIME.
    The Cable & Wireless brand as Barbadians have known it is about to be put to rest after 125 years in the Caribbean, as the company tries to recreate itself and present a new public image.Very reliable sources close to the company said the LIME brand, which represents (Landline, Internet, Mobile and Entertainment) should be rolled out next month.
    They said the telecommunications company’s rebranding was part of the overall transformation exercise that would improve service quality and emphasise the regional management structure allowing swift decision-making without confirmation from the British head office. The rebranding exercise would also involve previously announced staff cuts throughout the Caribbean. Sources said research undertaken by the company indicated the C&W brand had several negatives associated with it which hindered attempts to further penetrate the regional market.
    They added C&W had examined successful rebranding efforts by companies such as BWIA to Caribbean Airlines, CIBC to FirstCaribbean International and The Mutual to Sagicor Financial Corporation. C&W has lost market share to mobile phone rival Digicel in several Caribbean islands, with Jamaica experiencing the greatest loss. Richard Dodd, chief executive officer of C&W Caribbean, could not be reached yesterday for comment.
    However, corporate communications consultant for C&W Caribbean Julian Rogers said in statement: “As we said in July we are transforming our business into a single, strong pan-Caribbean operator designed to deliver the very highest levels of service to our customers. “We are currently talking to colleagues in our business about the next phase of our transformation programme and when we’ve finished this discussion, we’ll be ready to talk publicly about what happens next” He added: “We’re very excited about the changes we’re making to our business and hope that our customers will be excited too.
    However, it’s our policy to talk to our employees first about any changes we make, so we will not comment further until we’ve done so.”


  19. @ David.

    Sorry for being the last to read this blog.

    A monopolist company made $91 and its interest is not pretty much defined as to what is its current aim and motto that is worthy and dedicated to this island or our people…
    Why there is no Enforcement of Regulations from the FTC?

    IMO, this bears ‘irrelevance’ to Barbados Consumer public and the Economy.

    The present Government should also think about doing something with these businesses aiming at making the profit hurdles. Get the Real Telecommunications Competition here and ‘enough of this money-making hurdle process already and use it…’

    It looks like we’re seeing the needs of a newly Universal Public Consumer Watchdog Agency…

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading