Dear Editor,
I refer to an article in the June 3 edition of Stabroek News captioned ‘Prospective cable operator calls for fair allocation of spectrum.’ I don’t know Mr George Melville, but I totally disagree with his interpretation of the situation with regard to cable services, since he completely overlooks the events which led up to the two operators receiving a virtual monopoly on wireless cable in all parts of Guyana as unacceptable and probably unlawful.
Instead declares Melville, “Let them continue and let’s all get involved in the act.” We can’t all get involved in the act, since the lion’s share has already been allocated to these two operators, and surely it cannot have escaped Mr Melville’s attention that these two cable systems operating as they do in a primary zone, ie Georgetown, have in fact already penetrated the Guyanese market and attracted all persons who can afford to pay their monthly fee.
He does not even pause to consider if more services would increase competition and lend themselves to poor services, as providers abound in such a small marketplace providing poorer and poorer services as their capital dwindles.
These things are usually done after careful and exhaustive surveys as to how many systems the revenue available in a specific area can sustain, and therefore the number of such services we can legitimately allow.
Anything else will result in poor service in the cable industry as exists in the television industry. And since I have raised it, the television industry prior to the granting of any new licences must be the subject of a very comprehensive market survey and analysis, to inform the Broadcast Authority when properly formed (the present one is completely unacceptable in a democracy) how many TV stations can be realistically supported by the marketplace and how many radio stations the market can realistically support, since we certainly don’t want to jump from one pot of confusion to another.
In Mr Melville’s case surely he is not suggesting a third wireless operator, without determining if the market can support it!
Licences for wireless cable must be allocated in a more reliable and transparent manner, ie by bidding for the franchise to operate in certain zones ‒ Regions 3 and 4, Region 2, Region 6, etc, for a specific period of 10-15 years. And wired cable must not be ruled out in the major cities such as Georgetown, and everyone must pay an annual fee to the Consolidated Fund for the use of spectrum if wireless.
Mr Melville’s submission is not properly thought out, does not address the fact that cable is almost always allocated by some sort of bidding process, and is almost always in most small countries operated as a public utility/franchise. In addition, there must be a complete understanding that since substantial amounts would be offered for the franchises, it is done with the understanding that the entity bidding will enjoy some sort of exclusivity to serve the area under question, as distinct to having a monopoly.
At the end of the contracted period, if the provider has not been operating properly, so that it is deficient in terms of a good signal, reliability, properly priced services, etc, they will have to stop providing the service and the process of bidding will start over.
If they have performed well, whether they will have to bid again will depend on the original agreement and what the renewal fee will be. We have to stop this ridiculous thinking that this is a free for all, and that the public has nothing to say about what goes on. They have very much to do with what goes on, since Mr Jagdeo was not allocating Mr Jagdeo’s assets; those assets belong to the people and there should be proper laws in place to protect them.
Good service providers bring a lot to the equation. In Trinidad the wired cable system Flow does not only supply 300 channels of cable TV, but high-speed internet and telephone, etc, as well. Why must our people be denied these benefits owing to a flawed method of looking at these problems by people like Mr Melville and the PPP.
Any other thinking at this juncture would torpedo the opposition’s current objections to the way these licences were initially granted ‒ not for the benefit of the public, but for Mr Jagdeo’s friends.
Yours faithfully,
Tony Vieira
