When one enters IEB's new building at Ramna, an interesting banner will welcome him. The banner in Bangla hung by Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) mentioned: 'let ICT and telecommunication be the tools for poverty alleviation and socio-economic development'.
Incidentally, BTRC has shifted its office to Engineers Institution Building at Ramna, Dhaka. When Internet could not yet reach the masses, poverty alleviation through ICT is bound to remain a far cry. One might wonder if BTRC really believes in the aforementioned slogan because its past activities were never pro-poor rather it was aimed at wealthy a few.
A recent newspaper report on mobile operators mentioned that the number of mobile customers have reached a new height of 45.21 million subscribers in February 2009. That means in every three to four Bangladeshis we meet in our daily life we can expect to see at least one with a mobile phone in their hand. In the background of this positive picture of mobile phone penetration in Bangladesh, what is the scenario for Internet penetration? Anyone without a second thought can say that the situation is very gloomy.
According to Wikipedia and US intelligence fact book Bangladesh had only 0.5 million Internet users in March 2008. Mobile operators, however, claim to have about four million Internet users through their mobile network. No matter whether the number of Internet users is half a million or five million, the fact remains that it cannot match the figure for mobile phone penetration in Bangladesh. In the west, it may be possible to find a house without a land phone but it will be difficult to find a house without Internet access because internet is their main medium of information and communication.
If our goal is digital Bangladesh, where a banana farmer in Narshingdi could be in the same data communication network with a top official in Dhaka and like him would be able to get the same information at the same time, we must ensure wide spread adoption and absorption of ICT in every field of our activities. It is worthwhile to mention here that both the Internet Service Providers (ISP) and the mobile phone operators began their journey almost at the same time. So, why is this frustrating figure of internet penetration in Bangladesh--who is to be blamed for this poor performance? Can BTRC escape responsibility for this poor show? It is the policy guidelines or rules that encourage or discourage performance. When policy was favourable for mobile phone operators why it could not become helpful for the Internet Service Providers? Are we thinking of poverty alleviation through advancement in mobile phone communication, only?
The universities and software companies can purchase bandwidth from Bangladesh Telephone Company Limited (BTCL) at a reduced rate. Public universities and schools can purchase bandwidth at 50 per cent of the existing rate from BTCL. But, ISPs cannot give the reduction because they are not allowed price concession for selling bandwidth to the universities and schools. Why the ISPs are getting differential treatment? ISPs cannot sell voice-enabled bandwidth to the call centres because separate license will be necessary for it. One ISP marketing chief joked once that they were left with selling bandwidth to the betel leaf shops and the domestic users only. Under the circumstances of reducing customer base, can the ISPs scattered all over Bangladesh survive? Can we deny that ISPs all over Bangladesh provided employment opportunities for thousands of IT literate youths? With a little bit of policy support from BTRC, the ISPs could be a potential source of employment in the remotest districts of Bangladesh.
Sometimes ISPs were branded as a bunch of thieves encouraging illegal call termination but no body asked them why they are doing it or are they really doing it? What has gone wrong that has forced some of them, if not all, to indulge in illegal activities? Since 2002, BTRC remained anchored in Dhaka never peeping out of their elegant office windows to see what has gone wrong in Chittagong, Khulna, Rajshahi, Bogra or Sylhet excepting sending troops to raid ISP installations in these places in the name of tracking illegal VoIP activities. They have issued directives after directives to the ISPs, sometimes with only three days notice, flooding them with 'Dos' and 'Don'ts, threatening them to cancel their licenses if they are not effectively monitoring the IPs of their clients against illegal voice traffic. Sometimes, they have ensured business for companies by issuing directives, in the name of load balancing, to purchase 45 per cent bandwidth from each of the two International Internet Gateways (IIGs) in the country: BTCL and Mango Tele Services Ltd.
They never inquired:
(1) whether the ISPs have qualified manpower to monitor the illegal activities,
(2) whether the small ISPs are capable of managing their bandwidth by purchasing / utilising sophisticated bandwidth manager,
(3) whether the revenues they earn allow them to bear these additional expenses for specialised manpower,
(4) Whether the ISPs can do policing and become hostile with people on suspicion with whom they will have to work for their very existence,
(5). Whether the ISPs need any training, financial or technological support.
Does BTRC have any idea as to how many ISPs beyond the capital Dhaka can utilise a bandwidth of 5 MB and above? BTRC kept a blind eye when BTCL insisted that the minimum fibre-optic bandwidth that an ISP can purchase is 3 MB. No matter whether a division or district level ISP has a requirement of 3 MB bandwidth or not, to have the advantage of reduced price they must buy a bandwidth of 3 MB or above. If they want to buy a bandwidth less than 3 MB in quantity they will have to go for costly DDN bandwidth. A bandwidth of 3 MB or above is nothing for ISPs in Dhaka because they will be able to consume it. But it is a serious matter for ISPs in Khulna or Rajshahi-can they consume 3 MB bandwidth to begin with? When BTCL adopted policies that discouraged Internet use in the remote divisional or district towns, BTRC simply kept quiet. If policies are so unfriendly, can any body guess how long will it take to transform Bangladesh into a digital Bangladesh?
When our policies and guidelines are encouraging concentration of business in Dhaka in the hands of a few giant companies, most of which do not encourage peoples' ownership through offering of public share, how are we dreaming of poverty alleviation? When the Internet penetration in the country is so insignificant how can we dream of a digital Bangladesh? It is now time that we assess the contribution of our telecom policy, telecom rules and regulations, tariff etc in bringing in the essential knowledge and information to the masses, in increasing the purchasing capacity of our people; in spreading the income from the ICT sector to the whole country.
Though the terms and conditions of the ISP license say that ISPs cannot deny an Internet connection to anybody unless such connectivity is legally untenable or technically not feasible, the BTRC found it easy to blame and harass the ISPs for the wrong doings of their clients.
A retired army officer rented out a small room of his building to an ISP for using it as their remote sub-station (POP). RAB and police team raided the house at the night to find illegal VOIP equipment. They found nothing but were engaged in a heated debate with the land-lord on the necessity of raiding at the night. The landlord served a notice to the ISP next day to vacate his premises because he is not willing to entertain this kind of irritating incident at his house.
This is not an isolated incident; it is happening regularly. People are not reporting it for fear of repercussion and retaliation. BTRC has published advertisement in the newspaper warning people against renting out apartments to illegal VoIP businessmen. How can a member of the general public distinguish between illegal VoIP activities and legal ISP activities? As a result, any equipment that goes with optical fibre has become a suspect. Even RAB and police officials often followed the fibre-optic cable while looking for illegal VoIP users. Even an ordinary home user is not immune from this suspicion. Consequence has become disastrous.
If by doing all these exercises illegal VOIP activities are reduced, we would be rather happy. But it is not the case---illegal activities are on the increase. There are allegations that some of the VoIP equipment confiscated finds its way back to the market again. That means we have flaws in our regulations, flaws in our implementation methodology.
No body can stop advancement in technology. If Voice port is blocked, IP is blocked; people may go for VPN, encryption or other technologies. ICT is such an advancing sector that new technologies are coming in almost every day. People will always be able to find a way out when they are technically challenged. Therefore, stopping illegal VoIP activity by technical means alone is bound to be a futile exercise.
When there is a significant price difference between the legal and illegal market, illegal VoIP activities will flourish. BTRC can very easily stop or reduce the illegal VoIP activities simply by reforming tariff. If the rates for call termination in Bangladesh are significantly reduced to become closer to the local call rates then there will be no or very little illegal voice traffic. If international call termination rate is reduced to about two US cents per minute then illegal voice traffic will be greatly reduced. Somebody might say government revenue will fall. No, we don't think so.
Government revenue will rather increase--more traffic will be routed through legal channel. Instead of controlling illegal voice traffic through tariff reform and credible regulations, BTRC is trying to do it through the ISPs by coercion which is not fair and pragmatic. Coercive and impractical policies pursued by BTRC may be blamed for the insignificant penetration of Internet in the country. When ten thousand mobile phones were added in average per day, increase in the number of Internet users were limited to only 105 persons per day, in the last thirteen years.
Our telecom regulator has become more revenue conscious-there is nothing wrong in it if it is beneficial for the country and people at large. Recently BTRC has granted licenses for International Gateway (IGW), International Internet Gateway (IIG), Interconnection Exchange (ICX) and Wimax to a few companies in exchange of a hefty license fee. Business, thus, has gone to a few people who by remaining in Dhaka and by utilising a few technical hands can control the whole business and reap the exclusive benefit of deriving good return from their investment. Again from a capitalistic point of view nothing wrong in it because an investor is expected to try maximising his benefit. But is it right for a pro-poor welfare point of view? The activities that can be spread in the whole of the country, the activities that could have engaged a lot of IT literate unemployed youths in earning a livelihood legally were centralised in Dhaka catering to the requirement of a few fortunates. Going against their favoured slogan of poverty alleviation through ICT, our telecom regulator BTRC did everything to keep the returns from this huge economic bonanza in a few hands.
Why VoIP could not be open for all? What's wrong if there are fifty thousand VoIP licenses through out the country? Government will not loose revenue if VoIP licensees are connected to international carrier through International Internet Gateways (IIG). In addition to license fees VOIP licensees can also be required to pay additional charges on the basis of international call minutes utilised by them as recorded by the IIGs. This will allow the income from this sector to be spread through out the country. If poverty alleviation is the target, policies should be pro-poor. If ICT is the thrust sector in Bangladesh, if we expect ICT to be a bread earner for the country in future, we will have to take ICT infrastructure to the remotest corner of the country. If necessary, like the agricultural sector, government may consider giving subsidy to the remote users.
BTRC has issued several licenses bifurcating one activity into several sub activities. Even people engaged in the ICT sector for a long time get confused. This will encourage corruption through biased interpretation of different sub activities. Why can't we have only a few major activities where the sub-activities can be grouped into?
Last but not the least, if we understood it right, a regulator is a team leader working in a team towards achieving a common objective. A regulator is an enabling agent; a caring friend for its licensees. It is supposed to frame rules, regulations, and guidelines to ensure best possible return from the limited resources available. If the licensees can do business, government revenue in terms of taxes will increase. As a mentor for these licensees, BTRC can arrange continuous training having offices located all over Bangladesh.
These offices can help the licensees in understanding rules and regulations by following up and monitoring. Bangladesh Bank as a regulator continuously offers anti money laundering training to the bankers. Similar that should be one of the roles of BTRC.
Finding fault and realising penalty cannot be the goal. Waiting for people to make mistakes can maximise penalty and reward for BTRC officers but will not help us in reaching our goal of digital Bangladesh. Insignificant Internet penetration in the last thirteen years is the outcome of our failure in pursuing the right policy. We must learn from our failures and revise policies to make it pro-poor and people friendly.