Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

โ† 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.ย  Something about the fear of being sued.ย  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. ECONOMICS is among the most barbaric and inhuman social political ideologies, philosophies and psychologies ever practised by humankind. And, yes, it was invented around the 18th-19th Centuries by Europeans to assist them in their prolonged dominance and exploitation of other human beings across the world!! Some of the basic exploitative features and tendencies of the Economics ideology however predated Economics’ coming about!!

    Right now, among the core concepts and practices of this inverted political ideology is any sets of people or businesses or entities, usually an elitist rabid minority, in any region, or across regions, being able to ultimately extract from any other sets of people or businesses or entities, usually the propertyless majority, in any region, or across regions, far more value, time etc. than they have invested in them. Cable and Wireless is one such label for one group of cruel and inhuman Western elites that fundamentally thinks and practices economics on many of us inthe English speaking Caribbbean and elsewhere. At its core, its an unbridled corporate monster!!

    Meanwhile, Capitalism is the outright political system in which great emphases are placed on, et al, the right to freedom of human enterprise, the right to freedom of the individual/self, right to freedom of choice, and right to freedom of property ownership – emphases too that are protected and reinforced in our present political constitutionalism. Hence, it is within such a capitalist political system that this barbarism, Economics and its surrogates like TAXATION, INTERESTS RATES, REPAYING YOUR OWN MONEY VALUE TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LENDING YOU IT, WORK SYSTEMS, have despicably thrived against the most human and social benefient desires of the majority of peoples in any region. Although the Capitalist system and Economics do interrelate any where on any scale in this so-called modern world, it is this economic political dispossession system in Barbados – which political leaders like Mr. Thompson, Mr. Owen Arthur, Sir Roy Trotman, Sir Allan Fields, Mr. Dick Stoute, Mrs. Ram Merchandani and others are so beholden to and are so continuing to legitimise by their own particular words and deeds in this peripheral capitalist society – that is helping to prevent the Capitalist system from evolving into a more socially acceptable, beneficial and relevant one. One of the logical consequences of this grave failure – seeing that the Capitalist and economic systems of Barbados are socially, politically, materially, and financially bigger and stronger than the governmental system of Barbados – primarily a rule/authority making and maintaining system – is the emergence of government – expressed through its agencies like the Fair Trading Commission and The Telecommunications Authority – being made to continue to appear weak in the face of the marauding and dastard behaviour by Cable and Wireless and other such entities in Barbados. Hence, this kind of situation must NOT be surprising!!

    PDC


  2. Inadvertence: Paragraph 3, line 19 – insert after – “and elsewhere” – but before, that is.

    PDC


  3. What i said on Dec 15TH 2003.

    This government has agreed to metered rates.

    In April 1999 Owen made a statement that he had no intention of changing or challenging the then contract with C&W citing the flight of highly skilled staff from Barbados and potential damage of Barbados reputation as stable law abiding country. In November 1999 we have learned that the government will be ending its contract with C&W.

    I also believe that any agreement (MOU) between the government and Cable & wireless would have resulted in changes and restrictions that Barbadians will have to adhere to as users of cable & wireless network, such that these changes and restriction will have to become law, so I look to the green paper on telecommunications and the telecommunications act. The two following statementS are contained in the green paper on telecommunications.

    The rule of 3In the industry, a carrier applies the rule of 3 method to provision the fewest trunks and switch elements to efficiently meet the needs of the users based on average call hold times of 3 minutes. The rule of 3 model is not applied in Barbados since the holding times tend to be longer than 3 minutes. These long holding times have been caused by the flat rate for the domestic service, which applies irrespective of the duration of the call. The long holding times associated with Internet calls – an average of 27 minutes compared with 5 minutes for a voice call – also contribute to the peculiar usage pattern.

    The government made the above statement and it is at the heart of the flate rate vs. metered rate debate. Holding time is simply defined as the time a phone goes โ€œoff hookโ€ and receives dial tone making a voice call possible until it is โ€œreturn to hookโ€ which disconnects it from the network. The statement to my mind suggests that government has justified Cable & wireless request for metered rates. Nothing contained in the green paper attempts to treat to the issue of high usage โ€œlong Holding timesโ€ (de lotta long talk that Bajans have been accused of) and the above statement to my mind also shows that cable & wireless with governmentโ€™s approval seeks to profit from it.

    “BYPASS
    The international call revenue of incumbent operators is under pressure owing to the collapse of the accounting rate system and technological advances that enable operators to bypass international facilities. Technological advances such as the development of low cost packet switched international gateways, e.g. Voice over Internet Protocol, has enabled the bypass of circuit-switched international gateways. Such bypass activities raise particular economic concerns when tariffs are not cost based and the bypass services substitute the services providing the subsidy.
    In recognition of the need for a smooth transition to liberalization, the Government acknowledges that acts or omissions which facilitate bypass of the Public Switch Telephone Network (PSTN) by persons offering telecommunications services to the public will undermine the liberalization process and the transition to cost based pricing.

    The Government is not opposed to individual members of the public accessing voice over the Internet for their personal use.

    The provision of voice telecommunications services is a regulated service. ISPs will only be permitted to promote and provide voice services to the public in Phase 3 when they have obtained the appropriate Carrier license.

    Voice over the Internet has grown-up in North America it is now a serious competitor to traditional wire line telephone service, and it’s not yet a regulated service. One VoIP provider, Vonage.com as been able to subscribe as much as 80,000 new customers in as little as 3 months. Cable & Wireless knows this and faced with the expirations of their exclusive license and the potential for immediate pressure on their revenues from local ISPโ€™s who could have easily implemented and market high quality of service voice calls locally and internationally sought the edge the way monopolies traditionally do. They agreed to give up their exclusive license 11 years earlier for the chance to increase profits on existing service (metered rates on existing plans) and protection of revenue during that 11-year period by blocking the implementaion of VoIP.

    Increase profit margin with metered rates
    Protect market share for 11 years.

    With Owen Arthur calling for the FTC and Cable & Wireless to “get on with it” is yet another example demonstrating lack of responsibility, displacing accountability for anything bad or negative to the parts of government that makes it difficult for Barbadians to determine said responsibility.

    Erskine Sandiford showed a lack of understanding the importance of telecommunications sector to the Barbados economy with selling governments shares and renewing C& W contract until 2011 to the Barbados economy.
    Owen Arthur, it turns out has only given lip service to understanding the same, for while he has announce plans for universal usage of the internet in Barbados and willingness to end C&W monopoly to honour WTC commitments, he has agreed and made it the law not to allow VoIP which ironically would have brought the competition that we were promise by the end of this year. Barbados is stuck with C&W a little longer than was nesseccary as a result of succesive governments either not knowing or understanding telecommunications or because there were in bed with them

    http://www.barbadosforum.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=554&view=findpost&p=6055


  4. A respondents comments to the above

    Adrian an interesting perspective but to play devil’s advocate for a minute. If we accept that C&W had the market cornered before the MOU what carrot could the GoB have offered C&W to encourage them to give up their monopoly long before the expiry of the agreement?
    =======================

    My response to the above

    Government had commitments as a signatory to the World Trade Organization to liberalize its telecom sector by 2005. Having a monopoly license pass that deadline in a jurisdiction of a WTO signatory country would have hampered Cable & wireless in other WTO signatory countries where C&W was trying to get into the market. Having such a license would have hurt its chances of purchasing a smaller telecommunications company in Japan. Nippon Telephone Company a much large monopoly than C&W stood in the way of purchase, and C&W threaten to appeal to the WTO.

    I do not think that Government understood this and as such entered into negotiation with C&W with one objective, whatever it takes to facilitate a timely commitment deadline with the WTO. Government thought it was giving away one carrot โ€œagreeing to metered ratesโ€ but by making it illegal to bypass the PSTN and prohibiting the commercial sale of VoIP telephone service they have in fact given away the entire farm.

    So the Carrot was metered rates and the bonanza was forced acceptance of the Cable & Wireless PSTN as the only access point to dial tone and that has secured and insulated C&W profit margins from the one threat it could not control, competition.

    BTW Cable & Wireless USA has filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy

    http://www.barbadosforum.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=554&view=findpost&p=6056


  5. Another question pose to me.

    So Adrian I am not any good on the contract law but I would imagine that somewhere in the MOU there is some expectation on the part of the GoB which has to be met vis a vis ensuring that Barbados can become competitive as a developing state by reducing telecommunications costs. If it is that voIP is the emerging technology which will allow for cost efficient delivery there must be some way to challenge any agreement which is in position. Pardon my naivetรฉ on this matter.
    ==========================

    My response:

    The MOU is not the Law. The MOU cannot be used to procecute a member of the society. That is why i have stated that we do not need access the MOU to understand what agreements the GoB and C&W signed on. The MOU is a legal binding agreement (contract) in law between two parties the GoB and C&W. It cannot be used to determined the right and wrong of a member of the society’s action. This is where the green paper on telecommunications comes in, explaining governments policy plan and then followed by the Telecommunications act. , the law that will be use to determined right or wrong of the citizen, with regards to telecommunications in Barbados. I am not a lawyer, and i am not afraid to be wrong or partially right, and if i was living in Barbados i would have to determine if the provision with in the telecommunications act which forces me to use a private company’s service against my wishes runs counter to the supreme law of the land the constitution from which i derive freedom of choice. I think it is worth checking.

    —————————-

    A competitive enviorment does not in of it self bring about lower cost to the consumer. Deregulation and liberalization of utilities i.e. electricity and gas in America have not brought about lower cost instead cost as been rising. To this government liberalization = competition. Competition= more than one company offering wireline and cellular voice services. With Cable & wireless designated the incumbant carrier all telecommunications paths will lead to them, and they are busy setting up high cost telecom paths to there network. Interconnection; if the cost to interconnect is set high how can the consumer in additions to having more choices also realise a cost reduction? I do not understand how bypassing the PSTN could stand up in a court of law.

    http://www.barbadosforum.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=554&view=findpost&p=6058


  6. More questions pose to me on Dec 15-16 2003
    ==========

    Adrian thanks for your pellucid responses to the query at hand. You raise some interesting points which I will pursue for clarification. One thing which you did not mention was the role of the FTC when approving rate hikes. Shouldnโ€™t the FTC be the one performing the due diligence and applying the acid tests to the arguments for increases ever mindful of the issues which you have landed on the table?
    =======================

    My response:

    With respect to this hearing on Metered rates the FTC is nothing more than a commision of Enquiry, it has no power to stop Metered rates. It is an entity in this case that will serve the purpose of throwing blame to when this government hand is called in. Government in the Green paper on Telecommunications in the section detailing the rule of 3 clearly approves of metered rates, clearly agrees that the socializing that decades of flat rate pricing plan has lead to should end. It is clear to me that the green paper deals with aspects of what was agreed to by both parties in the MOU. As i have stated the MOU is a legally binding document and the FTC cannot successfully rule in favour of the intervernors by not allowing Metered rates.

    This all goes back to our system of government “No responsibility can be found when things do not look good. The parts of government covers each other. It is only now that we are getting details of Sandiford dealing with Cable & Wireless, because it is convient to do so.

    The last BLP Column seems to be setting the mood for a less than favourable outcome to these hearing . By blaming the DLP for their handling of C&W in the pass there are also hoping to transfer that blame for the current impass and unfavourable outcome of these hearings that is come. Metered rates are just around the corner.

    http://www.barbadosforum.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=554&view=findpost&p=6062


  7. I am not a phrophet, I do telecom stuff for a global company. ๐Ÿ˜€


  8. March 17th 2008

    “A consumer still cannot pick up the phone and make an international call using a competitive carrier of their choice. And while consumer-grade โ€œhigh-speedโ€ internet is much more widely deployed, because C&W continue to have control of the โ€œlast mile copperโ€ 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.”
    Chris Halsall

    September 2nd 2003

    QUOTE
    A T1 (high speed data) line in Barbados costs BDS $7500 per month, and a T1 line in Florida cost BDS $1200 per month. Cell phones are irrelevant. I am more interested in a T1 line, I cant use a T1 line here now, and I would certainly like to, because it cramps our business, it slows our business activity down. But I am not going to pay Cable & Wireless $7500 per month.

    President of the Barbados International Business Association (BIBA) George Gleadall

    Full article at : http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/NewViewNew…fm?Record=14806

    Local Leased circuits should be taken away from C&W, made a wholesale service and be sold by a seperate company

    Adrian Hinds.


  9. Adrian — thank you for bringing some of the history to this discussion. It is important to realize how long this fight has been underway.

    However, I don’t complete agree with your statement about Local Leased circuits being “taken away from C&W”.

    This would be what is referred to in the legal domain as a “taking”, which must be compensated for.

    Instead, what’s known as “Local Loop Unbundling” should be enacted, providing competitors with the ability to lease the existing “last mile” copper at a reasonable rate (read: the same as C&W pay themselves internally), over which they can provide services.

    With regards to “bypass”, please keep in mind that this is in relation to international call termination into Barbados. A great deal of the current Act focuses on this issue, which is rather ironic when you consider that if international calling was at a reasonable cost, then bypass simply wouldn’t be an issue — competitors could purchase interconnecting circuits at a reasonable rate and the issue wouldn’t manifest.

    I still find it absolutely amazing that Outgoing International Calls are illegal because of the FTC approved Reference Interconnection Offers. This is a fundamental error which is the sole remaining reason our outgoing calls are so expensive. And the FTC refuses to review these, despite numerous requests my myself and others, as I’ve documented in my older articles.

    Lastly, please note that my article did not actually make it into the Advocate today. No word as to why yet — it’s been with them for over ten days now. I may now be persona non grata… We shall see….


  10. Local lease circuits vs. Local loop “UNBUNDLING”.

    I think we are discussing the same thing.

    A loop circuit generally refers to the circuit connecting the subcribesr’s set with the local switching equipment. It could be a POTs, ISDN, DSL, T1 etc.

    Unbundling is an interesting word which i take to mean, “release” to seperate out etc. To my mind a discount for this service to competitors by the incumbent carrier is not the same as unbundling.

    At any rate i made my comments then to demonstrate what Government had they been properly informed should have requested that C&W give up in exchange for government not allowing Bypass of the PSTN, They could have kept their license untill 2011 if they deared. BET was once seperate and distinct in everyway from Bartel.

    What is so amazing about what was foretold? Things today in Barbados telecom sector were evident from as far back as the days Brian Barnes. Is still with us?


  11. Adrian:

    Yes, we are talking about the same thing — but language matters. Please forgive me for being pedantic, but the issue should *not* be framed as a “taking”, but rather as a normalization or a rationalization.

    As in, nothing is being taken away from the incumbent, but rather that the incumbent is to make available to all licensed carriers access to the physical plant which has *already been paid for* by the consumers of a prior monopoly, at the true costs the incumbent provides said plant to themselves.

    It is importantly worth noting that C&W are the only entity in possession of “last mile copper” to consumers appropriate for telecoms. Unlike just about everywhere else in the world, there does *not* exist a parallel co-ax cable video connection to the consumer. Instead, here in Barbados we have MCTV’s MMDS — unidirectional wireless.

    Therefore, there does not exist a viable alternative connection to the consumer for television, Internet nor telephony. Why is this so?

    Without sharing more than I can (without being sued), let’s just say that most of the “telephone poles” here in Barbados are actually power poles, owned by Barbados Light and Power. And who has a sizable ownership in a certain telecommunications company?

    To close — yes, it was foretold. But you might have thought that those behind might have leveraged on the opportunity to learn from the mistakes and lessons of those who have gone before…

    This is not rocket science — it is small engine repair….


  12. Thanks Adrian and Chris for engaging on this technical matter which we hope will benefit others. The telecommunications sector is obviously critical to Barbados repositioning in the global economy. Breaking the deadlock which C&W have had on the industry remains a challenge.


  13. 2003 was a missed opportunity that will not occur again. It is up to the people of Barbados now. They have to be prepared to suffer for change, as it will not come about from any benovelence from C&W. A cash Cow is a treasured thing for it’s cash making ability only.

    ….There is technical expertise in the Bajan diaspora, that can come up with exciting ideas to bring real competition to C&W. Most of this expertise will not work for free, and the minority of which i am part, will do it for free, but know of the bad experience of others in the diaspora who sought to feely help in other areas.


  14. “So the Carrot was metered rates and the bonanza was forced acceptance of the Cable & Wireless PSTN as the only access point to dial tone and that has secured and insulated C&W profit margins from the one threat it could not control, competition”

    My recollection of events that were occurring a number of years ago is that a lawyer in the Island of Dominica successfully challenegd the islands telecommunications multi year monopoly as being contrary and against Domincas constitution, for freedom of communication. This would likely have been successful or upheld all the way up to the Privy Council. Barbados has a similar freedom of expression in its constitution.

    So the tide was turning against these long term contratcs and Cable and Wireless knew the writing was on the wall.

    This agreement with Cable and Wireless where the international calls have to keep going through them until 2011 was not in the best interest of Barbadians. People knew exactly what they were doing and were compensated for that agreement.


  15. Reality Check, the company was Marpin communications, One of the Lawyers for C&W in that case was Henry Forde. This association was one of the reason i used in my decision never to associate with anything that Henry Forde was a member of or associated with. In fact i have often raised concerns about Lawyer Politicians, as i am now so doing by raising concerns about political economist. The current stalemate in the Telecommunications sector is partially the result of Henry Forde, and Bree St.John, and if we believe that this stalemate has stymied the development and progress of the Barbadians economy then you cannot disassociate the legal help that made it possible. I know I will hear that we should not hold a lawyer responsible for representing a client, and i don’t , I hold these two former members of our government responsible. Be very aware of Lawyer Politicians and Political economist.


  16. Chris Halsall // March 17, 2008 at 6:31 pm

    Adrian:

    Yes, we are talking about the same thing โ€” but language matters. Please forgive me for being pedantic, but the issue should *not* be framed as a โ€œtakingโ€, but rather as a normalization or a rationalization.

    ===============================

    This is the biggest problem in Barbados to-date. Naked pragmatism, and willingness to engage in word plays. It is not working it has never worked. Not many people can recall a single cogent thought of Glanstone Holder, or Wendell McClean, or Brian Barnes, persons who meant well but spent to much time concentrating on the niceties of language and accepted negotiation techniques etc. I am going to call it as it is.


  17. Hi Chris, others,

    We know that the reference interconnection agreeement requires some amendment to facilitate competition. Yes, I agree that unless we have “true” competition then one cannot speak of a liberalised market nor will we start to see the benefits to society until then. It is impossible to have competition when companies are not required to allow access to outgoing interconnected long distance service unless they take or leave what Cable & Wireless is prepared to offer. Keep up the good work and hopefully Government will hear us. Hallam.


  18. Is it fair to say that after allowing C&W to rape us given the distasteful profits they have generated over the years they are about to screw the respective government in the Caribbean where they operate?

    Did we hear correctly that they cutting 1200 employees by mid-October?


  19. You heard right David… Barbados Unit alone made $84M net profit 2007 and $91M net profit 2008 in a “COMPETITIVE” environment.

    1200 employees regional – not sure how many locally but figures suggest as many as 300!


  20. This is an outrageous state of affairs. How could a company in one month boast about its super-profits and in the next month announce the trimming of workers.

    I get a bit agitated at the people who say that C&W has been good to us. They have not. For the most part these are people who either work with C&W or receiving benefits from it.

    Why are we allowing 91M BDS dollars to go out of Barbados like that? You understand how many jobs that is? You understand how much we are being overcharged as consumers?

    Let’s talk law. However, I am not getting up from here to look for references. Call me lazy, but not tonight, so please bear with the generalisations. Better this way anyhow.

    Not sure I can agree that the FTC could not stop metered rates or that it has no legal teeth to regulate. On the contrary, The Fair Trading Commission Act, The Utilities Regulations Act and the Utilities Regulations (Procedural Rules), describe the processes and procedures for regulating the Telecommunications Industry.

    The fact that the FTC did not approve metered rates and the fact that C&W does not charge metered rates is proof that FTC does regulate.

    Furthermore, under the legislation, the only procedure for the approval of rate increases is a hearing. Yet along comes Price Cap with the promise of a hearing at the end of the Price Cap period to ascertain the reasonableness of the increases under Price Cap.

    However, as far as I am concerned, the FTC broke the law by not having a hearing and on the second count, approved the increases without a hearing, which is counter to the legislation.

    Now, I am not taking what Adrian said seriously about the FTC being a fall-guy for Government. That would not hold up in international law, after Parliament legislated all the provisions for liberalisation and created the authorities and mechanisms for enforcing the commitment.

    For me the carrot was a promise that Price Cap fulfilled, i.e. for C&W to make superprofits. The access point was probably the insurance that C&W would get their carrot.

    The manner in which C&W is going about collecting profits and cutting staff cannot be good for the development of this country.

    I still think that the best solution is that Government or the people should own the copper network and dial tone, so as to reduce the level of foreign exchange being drained by C&W but more important to own the platform from which all other competitors could jump in at the lowest possible rates.

    In terms of technology, Chris is correct and he is the only person besides myself that I have heard argue (and it is a fact that was borne out in the rate hearing by C&W engineer, Ed Layne) that this is old technology which C&W is employing and, in his testimony, he said that he does not see C&W changing it in the very near future.

    This old technology is doing us no good. It is like driving a new car on roads densely populated with pot holes. Not only that you are destroying the car, you still can’t go fast.


  21. Get a Mac and use iChat. It’s free and you see who you’re talking to.


  22. ROK

    This is truly an outrageous state of affairs, but you are treading on dangerous ground by suggesting, if indeed you are, that Government nationalize an asset, the copper network and dial tone of a majority privately owned company. The WTO would certainly go ballistic and it would scare the daylights out of any potential foreign investor.

    Much better for Government to use the FTC to ensure true liberalization by forcing C&W to lease this infrastructure to competitors at a reasonable rate.

    The real question is whether Government has the will. Perhaps here is where Hallam Hope’s consumer body can direct its energies.


  23. If it is 300 employees expected to be affected in Barbados this is not a big number if C&W were to impose a hiring freeze, look at early retirement and other attrition methods. The sending home of these employees is a betrayal to the countries of the Caribbean which has been a market which has been very good to C&W in its history of doing business in the Caribbean. We can only hope that C&W can rethink its decision and what a time to make the announcement. The PR fallout will be enormous for C&W, we agree with Inkwell that Hallam Hope and the Barbados Consumer Watch needs to get busy.


  24. It’s simple, if consumers in Barbados call C&W and ask them kindly to remove their equipment and services, then they would get the message. The problem is, we believe we can’t do without a phone or any other kind of C&W service.The other side to that is, they can’t do without us either


  25. However you look @ it 300 for that matter 150 or 100 is still too much after having made $84 and then $91M NET profit.

    WOW how can they justify that?

    What precedence is set for a BS&T, BNB, Cave Shepherd or BL&P ?


  26. @Rok
    Now, I am not taking what Adrian said seriously about the FTC being a fall-guy for Government. That would not hold up in international law, after Parliament legislated all the provisions for liberalisation and created the authorities and mechanisms for enforcing the commitment.
    =================================
    My comments re. “FTC being a fall-guy” were made long before the ruling to deny C&W their request for metered rates. I stand by my comments, as they were informed by a carefull reading of the Governments green paper on telecommunications, which showed a government clearly making the case for metered rates on behalf of C&W. It was a hot button issue everybody in Barbados was dead set against metered rates and the government wanted protect it’s reputation. The idea as i saw it was to bring back door pressure on the FTC to give into C&W under the cloak of confusion and complexity that such hearing are conducted with. When the CEO and others at the FTC balk at this situation leading to several resignations, a different game plan had to be engineered. What resulted was a carefully orchestrated “fooling of the public” by the BLP and c&w. Metered rates did not happened but a rate increase occured which had the same effect as intended all along which was to increase revenue and remain a monopoly in ever which way except in name, in a so called liberalized telecom sector. This playbook is old.

    C&W made the case that their MOU with the GoB entitled them to institute metered rates in exchange for giving up their licence before 2011 expiration date. Government made the case for this in their telecom green paper. The MOU became a much sought after document. It was release after Owen Arthur made demands of c&w. I believe that this show of Bravado was planned and agreed to by C&W after it became clear that there was no other way out for the GoB to save face.


  27. @ROK and @Inkwell.

    ROK — as usual, I agree with *most* of what you’ve written above.

    However, I also *strongly* agree with Inkwell and his concerns about your (possible) suggestion of nationalizing the copper plant and dial tone.

    As I said above in a response to Hinds, if not done appropriately, this could be viewed as a “taking”, which has serious ramifications. (As an aside, Adrian, I stand by my position that words matter greatly.)

    Also, I really don’t believe you *want* the Government doing dial tone. It’s non-trivial. Much better to have *several* independent carriers offering it, competing with each other and driving the costs to consumers down.

    IMHO, this access to the “last-mile copper” AKA “copper plant” is by way of Local Loop Unbundling (LLU). I am hoping that this will be one of the top agenda items for the next TARC meeting.

    However, one thing I find absolutely fascinating is that in order to price circuits available under LLU, one must know the cost. The FTC should have also been aware of this when deciding on the X-factor for Basket 1 of the PCM.

    For the record, the FTC admitting during the Q&A after to public “educational forum” on the PCM that they did not know the values. How they determined the 22.5% values for the previous period, the the just determined values, leads to speculation on motivation…

    Another issue some of you might want to meditate on… Please don’t forget that the last-mile copper for the most part runs along rights-of-ways owned by BL&P, and no-one else seems to have access to this pole system except one other particular telecommunications company.

    Oh, one other thing — the FTC do *not* currently regulate the utility pole system here in Barbados — it is “self-regulated”. Perhaps this should change.


  28. @Chris

    Please assist us to fill a knowledge gap.

    In the move to deregulate the telecoms market in Barbados we have seen the real competition coming in the mobile and to a lesser extent wireless. We are yet to see ‘real’ competition in the fix line sector which some argue is a dieing service given trends.

    Here is the gap.

    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?


  29. Consumer wants to call vonage and is blocked by illegal C&W message
    “I’m sorry, your call was unsuccessful. Please check your number and try again. This is a trecording from Barbados.”

    This act by C&W is illegal.


  30. Adrian

    See where you are coming from. I also stand by my statement and if you check carefully it is really not at odds with what you are saying.

    I also agree that it was a planned charade but you have to admit that the metered rates plan did backfire. They were some who were backing metered rates, including the disabled.

    They were arguing that metered rates would keep their telephone bill down until I broke it down for them and it was then that they submitted an application to intervene and allowed Public Counsel to carry their case against meteres rates.

    We really had to do a lot of work to convince Barbados that metered rates was not in their interest and that it would place a heaping burden on the consumer. Even, C&W gave up on metered rates and submitted an alternative plan, based on projected usage.

    They were so sure that metered rates was going to win that they even adjusted the bill to show usage, which up to now has not been re-adjusted. Still showing calls from and to cell phones etc. and now two pages instead of one.

    C&W also took some licks on the Green Paper issue in the hearing. C&W argued that the GP stated Government’s intention, while we argued that it was a discussion paper and that the next stage was a white paper which never happened.

    This argument was accepted by the FTC based on the fact that a Green Paper could not be intended to usurp the authority of the FTC as it was not law.

    The only worth of the MoU in the hearing was to establish that C&W gave up it’s license and agreed to go through a re-balancing exercise according to the gob commitments under WTO.

    It is very obvious that there was collusion between C&W and GoB and that the FTC was coerced into giving C&W an increase. So as you said, when the rate hearing failed, they took another route; Price Cap.

    However, there is an even bigger national scenario. C&W reduced it staff by 2000 workers or thereabouts. These were workers who, when they applied to C&W and went through training, etc. expected that they would retire from C&W and not be severed, seemingly without reason.

    So this move not only sought an increase but it affected the lives of Barbadians, adding to the unemployment levels at a time when C&W could afford to keep the workers. While some were able to use their training, others ended up in the rum bottle. That is another story but it is a good example of how wheeling and dealing at the top severely affects the lives of unsuspecting ordinary people.

    My next problem with the C&W increases is that they are contributing greatly to the increased cost of living and inflation. My projection is that if the rates (including internet and cell phones)were set to where they should be, many people would save more than $100 per month; that is $1200 per year. Enough to pay road taxes, drivers license and in some cases, half their insurance. Alternatively, those without a car could pay their house insurance and be protected from natural disaster.

    By law, which we calling the old ROR (that, by the way, is still in force) C&W is not supposed to earn more than 12% profits after tax and expenses . This move has placed them in a 30%(+) profit bracket on investment.

    This is totally unfair to the people of Barbados and the Government is allowing it to be perpetrated. What is required now is to take the FTC and C&W to court. The former for allowing C&W to break the law and the latter for actually breaking it. I am saying this because I have never seen a Price Cap Act and if there is really none, there is no way you could lose the case.

    Remembering Chris at this time because you know, I can’t swear there is not a PC Act.


  31. @ROK

    Could this explain former Minister Ronald Toppin’s resignation, Frank King and a whole host of others?


  32. Inkwell, Chris

    All I will say to this is that to every principle there are exceptions. Noy only that, every sovereign country has a right to arrest wrongs in its society and economy.

    Free trade may be generally accepted and I also accept that… but here is a case where liberalisation is causing damage because two monopolies are fighting one another; the grass getting trampled.

    All the rates related to cellular use and the supply of internet are extravagantly over-price at a time when inflation is a great concern to us in the Caribbean and even if not in the Caribbean in Barbados.

    The fact is that we have not agreed to liberalise everything and the copper plant is one that is sensitive, then we need not liberalise it, but offer the liberalisation to all services feeding from it.

    We have to decide what is the goal. Is the goal to allow monopolies? How do you break them up? Monopolies are also against the principle of free trade and liberalisation.

    If I was in Government or the PM, I would threaten C&W that if they did not do something to reduce the rates, we would nationalise the copper network. I really would not care about them because they closing down all over the world. So why are we supporting and forking out money to pay dividends to EU shareholders to satisfy losses in other countries?

    You could bet that if it was a Bajan company in England, the screws would be on every since. We do not have to take this. Are we liberalising water? Water is being liberalised all over too. St. Lucians are facing this right now.

    Therefore, the only reason we are liberalising telecoms is because we commited to doing it. If we had not then it would not have been liberalised, so to do so now would be to renege.

    The EPA is another classic example that we liberalise what we want and keep in-tact what we don’t want. Hence that is why the critics have been saying that we are giving away far too much. The WTO rules only requires you to state your hand.

    I know, Chris, that we have been at this for a while. Competition is not working because we are too small a market. So if competition is not working, WTO has no relevance.

    We are paying the ultimate price and according to the principle of special and differential treatment, (as accepted by WTO) we are quite entitled to do it, if liberalisation is going to bring hardship to our people, which it has.

    The point is that we have not liberalised the land line and once that is so, what is wrong with Government intervention to stop the madness?

    It means that our Government would have lost its sovereignty and is unable to properly govern? Our constitution gives a mandate to the government and charged them with good governance as does every other democratic government so what you telling me about WTO hitting the roof.

    I believe that WTO is a bit more pragmatic than that and would more than likely accept such a submission from any Government.

    Let us stop fooling ourselves and opening up ourselves to the RAPE based on some worldly principle that do not have our interests at heart and designed to carry on the imperialist domination.

    We can do better.


  33. @ David

    Yes it does explain the resignation of Ronald Toppin as well as all the professionals that left. At least they had a conscience and I believe that the only reason the former Public Counsel did not get that job is because he is too sincere and would have taken Government all the way. Either that or it would have been another resignation.


  34. @ROK… [smile] As usual we are in general alignment, but come at things in very different ways. This is one of the reasons I so enjoy debating issues with you!

    Please do not misunderstand me. I *agree* that the copper plant should be available on a fair and equitable basis to all (legal) competitors. I’m simply wishing to ensure this is not done in a way that could be argued as a “taking”.

    In my opinion, the prices Barbadians pay for domestic telephony is probably pretty close to reasonable. As in, there has been “rate rebalancing”. Thusly, and importantly, this means that C&W should *not* be allowed to continue to argue that they need to charge the outrageous amounts they do for international telephony and data services.

    I also want to point out that we are *NOT* in a liberalized telecommunications environment. We claim to be, but we’re not. The proof of this is simply empirical — if we were in a liberalized marketplace, there would be competition beyond the token amount we see currently.

    Rather than nationalizing the copper plant, I would argue that the policies on the books (“Two Stage Dialing” and “Equal Access and Indirect Access”) should be enforced, and the required additional policies (LLU, Local Number Portability, et al) should be created, enacted, and again *enforced*, to allow and encourage what has been promised.

    Please remember that PCM is really only intended for markets *without* competition. In truly competitive markets, the PCM can be removed because it is no longer required.

    Oh, and David — I must disagree with you that the Barbados marketplace is too small for competition. This is entirely untrue. It may be too small to support too many cellular providers, but there are *several* other areas where companies are ready and willing to compete, but simply cannot because of the lack of (or barriers to) access.

    Again, as I said in my article above, I really think the performance of the FTC should be reviewed by those who can…

    “Is there the political will?” is the question at hand.


  35. Whoops. Sorry David… It was ROK who argued “Competition is not working because we are too small a market.”

    And, while we’re talking within the context of the WTO… I have not spent any time studying the language, but I suspect that Barbados could actually be exposed to a challenge for its *current* lack of true liberalization.


  36. @ Chris

    You have a point there because Barbados committed. The only problem is that for liberalistion Government only has to show that it put the relevant legislation in place and that it went through the processes and even employed the mechanisms (Price Cap) associated with liberalisation.

    It is at that point that Government’s case would be closed and won in my estimation.


  37. @ROK…

    But, respectfully, they *didn’t*!!!

    The small about of relevant legislation enacted wasn’t generally enforced.

    And, with all do respect, *please* understand that PCM is *not* associated with liberalisation. Very specifically, PCM is designed for markets *without* competition!

    Again, with respect, this latter (IMHO, critical) point seems to be misunderstood by almost everyone.

    And, once again, the FTC completely misprogrammed the control parameters.


  38. @ Chris

    If we had a lot of small telecom operators the market would not be too small. However, de facto, with C&W and Digicel with their huge appetites, it is too small. That is why the grass getting trampled and ants and grasshoppers dying.

    If it is not too small, why did AT&T pull out? Here, small is relative. Oh! If you are talking about related services I would not argue against that.


  39. @ Chris

    Correct me if I am wrong, but if Barbados committed to liberalisation and the competition is really not there, is not the simulation of competition a reasonable attempt to show intent?

    I think we understand the simulation of competition as being part of the liberalisation attempt.


  40. @ Chris

    Sorry for the short posts but the legislation is a package with related consumer rights. This is not small at all. You are thinking purely about the providers but the FTC itself, Unfair Trade practices Act, Consumer Guarantees Act, Utilities Regulation Act which identifies the regulated and non regulated services, etc.

    Check http://bdosconsumers.blogspot.com on the right hand side scrolling down for a full list. Some were already in place and amended where necessary to harmonise the legislative provisions.


  41. @ROK: “…is not the s[t]imulation of competition a reasonable attempt to show intent?”

    What stimulation what???

    1. A Telecommunications Act which spends most of its language preventing “Illegal Bypass” (of International Telephony), and doesn’t even mention the Internet or TCP/IP (let alone NGNs) once.

    2. FTC approved Reference Interconnection Offer(s) (RIOs) which somehow forgot to include Outgoing International Call Termination, and which only specify a Physical Layer of OC3 fibre.

    3. A Telecoms Unit which came close to making IPSec (secure) tunnels illegal because they can be used to hide VoIP traffic.

    4. A Telecoms Unit which came close to enacting a VoIP Policy which would have made VoIP illegal for all but existing carriers.

    5. An enforcement behaviour which is empirically impotent.

    6. Implemented an environment which resulted in a shift from a monopoly to a duopoly in (effectively) only a single market segment.

    Perhaps your typo above was intentional — we’ve simulated competition, not stimulated it…


  42. Chris

    Simulation and not stimulation with respect to the PCM. Correct.


  43. Let BU asked the BU experts another question since the one above remains outstanding.

    We are not understanding the definition of competition in the context of the discussion so far. While competition can be generated by many entrants entering our tiny market, doesn’t commonsense also say that competition is a function of economies of scale i.e. driven by market scale?


  44. ROK: “Simulation and not stimulation with respect to the PCM. Correct.”

    Ah — OK. Sorry. So am I reading you correctly that you mean simulation by way of the PCM?

    If this is the case, then I would argue this does *not* protect Barbados from a WTO et al based challenge.

    IMHO, fundamentally, the WTO does not care about the consumers in a market — it cares about the extra-national producers (wherever in the world) covered by the agreement(s). The WTO assumes that Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” will take care of the consumers’ interests.

    Thus, I suspect that a foreign based provider which wanted to compete in Barbados, but encountered difficulties in doing so, could lodge a complaint based on the WTO.

    If anything, the existence of the PCM (no matter how poorly programmed) supports the argument that competition does not exist in said marketplace.

    Based solely on pure economic theory, any marketplace which does not have competition is either a natural monopoly (for example, electrical power distribution networks (but not production!)) or is operating inefficiently.

    Empirically, Barbados does not have as many competitors in many of the market segments which could support them, and equally important, the costs currently being charged are higher than necessary.

    The latter point is supported by comparing our rates to other jurisdictions, and separately, the profits being enjoyed by C&W (BB).


  45. @David: “We are not understanding the definition of competition in the context of the discussion so far.”

    I will speak to your other question above in a bit — must thing about that one carefully…

    With regards to “competition”, in my mind a competitor is anyone (human or company) which is willing to invest in providing products or services to consumers.

    Yes, our market is small. But it is not zero. There *may* be opportunities here (in different segments) for those willing to try.

    Open and free markets are intended to allow those willing to try, to do so. Some may fail — doesn’t matter; it’s not the markets’ responsibility to guarantee profits to providers/producers. The market’s goal is consumer benefits.

    There are many areas in telecoms which are large enough that several groups would likely be interesting in working. So long as the regulation ensures that anyone who wants to can, and *fairly*, then market forces start their magic.

    A few examples.

    1. VoIP service providers have started to appear.

    2. VoIP can now be (and is) being used *legally* by more and more individuals and businesses.

    3. Several providers have started offering VoIP based PBX solutions.

    4. Calling card providers — one is now in the market (Blue Communcations). Others are hoped for…

    The issue is that there are still several areas where competition could exist, if appropriate access (read: e.g. last-mile) was available.


  46. @Chris

    Thanks for working with us on the explanation. We are still struggling to connect some dots.

    It is usually beneficial to have competition because it benefits the consumer. In the instance of the telecoms market in Barbados we agree that fair and robust regulation is required to ensure fair competition. Specifically we have had an entrenched player which in our opinion the regulation should target-its that simple.

    ROK alluded to the many services which are feeding-off the C&W service. We have concerns that the regulation is not demanding that C&W offer bundle pakages e.g.several consumers pay for fixed line, adsl, netspeak, mobile and other services.

    The point we are trying to make is that it is well and good to create segments where new entrants can be niche players but the real benefit to Barbadians will be in bundle services from the telcos because of the entrenched player.

    Do you understand the point?


  47. @David: “We have concerns that the regulation is not demanding that C&W offer bundle packages…”

    With respect David, I have to argue that you have this exactly backwards…

    Bundles *distort* markets!

    In an ideal world, I should be able to rent my last mile copper from at least two providers (here in Bim we’re stuck with only one).

    Then I should be able to buy my local dial tone from provider A, my international dial tone from provider B, my Internet from provider C, and my television from provider D.

    And I should be able to do this for less than, or at the very least, no more than, what any one provider (or, at least, any existing incumbent) can deliver it for.

    If I may, when ROK and I argue about all the other services on the copper plant, what we’re concerned about, for example, is is the copper plant subsidizing xDSL? International Dialing? Leased Lines?. Are these services being overcharged?

    It all comes down to the cost and availability of the last mile, and the charges being paid by consumers.


  48. @All… Just for the record.

    I feel I need to say that everything I write in public is public information. I am very careful not to leak any information which is confidential or sensitive. (Oh! If only I was allowed to!)

    Everything I’ve written above can be supported with publicly available documentation and/or knowledge.


  49. @ Chris

    I keep telling you that we really are not even an inch apart. Just a question of perspective and the suggested solutions.

    For example, you said: “There are many areas in telecoms which are large enough that several groups would likely be interesting in working. So long as the regulation ensures that anyone who wants to can, and *fairly*, then market forces start their magic.”

    This is the same reason I am saying that the copper network and interconnection needs to be cheap in order for this to happen. Even if what you said is done (call cards, internet, etc.) at every junction C&W is creaming off to the disadvantage of entrants, driving up prices and making them non-competitive.

    Furthermore, there is another dilemma because C&W is both wholesaler and retailer. I have argued that where they are wholesaling they should not be allowed to retail. This is normal business practice for all other sectors so why should C&W be different?

    If you don’t want Government to take it over, then we should find an independent wholesaler to take it over and offer the services to all including C&W.

    Let me say that we will not ease up from this position, and even if Government buys it over and leases it to an independent wholesaler, that is good enough for me.

    Hope you see where I am coming from. C&W will continue to flout the rules, wriggle like a snake, bark like a dog, wheel and deal and anything to keep their profits up.

    You notice that the market now is Caribbean. They putting all under one. You understand the implications I hope? We will start hearing, it is done this way or that way in all the other jurisdictions so it must be implemented in Barbados.

    So all those countries that did not contest the flat rate will cause us to end up with metered rates. You just wait… but I just want to warn C&W that if they approaching it from a Caribbean perspective in one market space, this roaming thing has to stop.

    By the way, what is happening in St. Kitts or is it Antigua where the Government still owns the copper line.


  50. David,

    One of the problems with C&W is that if you take all their services they will offer you a discount/package. However, you will end up paying for things you don’t want.

    If you want to be selective, you pay the “penalty”. Not dissimilar from the old time trading where if you burst a package of, for example, razors you charge a higher price for one, based on the premise that there is no guarantee that the shopkeeper will get the whole package sold in singles or how much time all the singles will take to go; so the practice is about mitigation of losses.

    In the case of C&W, there are no losses to mitigate. I tell you! This entity running wild; against all traditional business practices. Don’t give a quarter, not even to cricket. They claimed backed every cent as necessary expenses.

    It was only in the last hearing where we objected so loudly that the Commission struck it off the list of items for which they were claiming.

    That was probably the first time ever that consumers did not pay for cricket, that C&W was making us believe was their contribution to the development of Barbados and West Indies cricket.

    C&W is not in the business of taxing its customers to pay for cricket last time we checked. That is a job for Government. They are in the business of telecommunications.

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