Fiji is a very unique place on earth. Some people say that it is because of our culture, some say because of our climate and others have different perspectives of our surroundings. Whatever the stories may be, our uniqueness is also evident in our very own telecommunication industry.
The pace and pattern of telecommunication revolution had clearly displayed the inability of relevant social infrastructures, and the lack of conceptuality among the individual players to adapt to the increasing demand of end users.
The chronology of changes that led to the deregulation of the telecommunication industry started more than a decade back, was recently revived in the past 24 months; and this has overflowed into the public and players are vigorously continuing to fight for that "level playing field".
The "level playing field" as quoted from the chief executive of Fiji International Telecommunication (FINTEL) in my view is no longer an issue now. The understanding is that within a "level playing field", all players are to follow the regulatory issues; the regulator will ensure that existing players are given equal opportunities to compete.
The telecommunication industry has been deregulated, however, 10 months later; there is still no sign of a regulator which should be the referee in this "level playing field".
The game has started and the players have their own definitions and interpretations of the Telecom Promulgation with the referee the Telecom Authority of Fiji (TAF) yet to be set up and the "linesman", the Commerce Commission closing its door for sometime.
For those that have played contact sports or those who paid registration fees to enter into a sports competition will agree that this situation is a very hostile one. No referee and no linesman.
Regulatory situation
The telecommunication industry in Fiji was operating under the monopolistic situation whereby the incumbent enjoyed government protection in the wireless and the fixed line sector. Internet Service Providers (ISP) were also restricted and Connect was the first to be given the licence to provide internet. Although there was the odd case of illegal bypass, which results in revenue leakage, telecommunication in Fiji largely operated in a monopolistic market.
The situation before was simple and also specified.
There was no entry of new operators and the government regulated the prices and operation. The government concentrated on one player and monitoring was not comprehensive as in a deregulated or highly competitive market. The customer concerns and complaints were mainly handled by 'watchdogs' such as the Consumer Council and maybe the Fair Trading Act, and prices were set by the Commerce Commission.
This is something that the public at large don't agree with in many cases and have often called on the government to open up the regulated industries for better choices and quality services.
Whether that situation is good or bad, it depends so much on how the individual understands the concept of competition as a whole, not only the price but the integrating of economic concepts and technology specifications as well. The telecommunication industry is so unique in its own form because one needs to understand the infrastructural setups and at the same time have full appreciation of the economic concepts.
Rule of the game
Fiji is not the only government that has de-regulated its telecommunication industry or deregulated any industry for that matter. The US deregulated their long distance call in 1970 and significant lessons can be drawn from three decades of operation. Being late starters maybe problematic to some; but for our case we have the advantages as we have a lot to learn from the governments that have done this.
Since the 18th century, operators and regulators have being sharing ideas on how this industry can be better managed and we have seen in history the failures and successes globally. We now have no reason to fail in adapting to this changes unless somebody is not doing their work.
The message is clear, customers want a better or a wider choice, new operators promising more and better services. The unclear aspect is who will oversee the administration of a deregulation including the pre-deregulation and post-deregulation periods. There are infrastructures and institutions that need to be in place before the market is opened for competition.
Institutions and social infrastructures need not only be heard but be seen as well before we allow for the competition to come in. The Minister for Telecommunication said in February 2008 that licensing will be left to TAF to organise when he was asked who will be giving the licence to mobile operators. Eight months later and the first month into the operation of the new mobile operator the TAF is yet to be seen.
TAF is the most fundamental and significant stakeholder that needs to exist to administer the new de-regulated telecommunication industry. After months of a deregulated market and a month into the operation of the new mobile operator; the industry as a whole has started to feel the competition will soon slip into a natural monopoly again if the government just thinks about the $10 million licence fee and forgets the necessary things needed to influence the environment to be conducive to competition.
Historically, deregulation of the telecom industries has led to rapid development of new technology, lowering of prices, the availability of advanced infrastructure and communications devices and the provision of much needed universal services. The ability of individual operators to innovate and increase investments is the expected positive externality in the new competitive market. This was clearly articulated in 1997 when the World Trade Organisation led the discussion of improved service provision of Telecoms by encouraging a competitive market structure.
Chaos will develop in our situation due to the non-appearance of the referee and I am not only speculating but I have reason to believe that the telecom operators in Fiji will go through a tough time if the TAF does not only show up soon but shows up prepared for issues that are already pending.
The director for the Consumer Council had already voiced her concern about customers being not sure where to turn to when they become a victim of unplanned, excessive marketing campaign of the three mobile operators causing congestion in their networks. On the other hand, the fixed line operator is starting to provide their so called "cordless fone" which is technically mobile in nature.
TAF should also come in and iron out the differences in definitions, in operations and interpretations, of which the existing operators have their own versions.
The telecom industry is such that we cannot afford to solve the current confusions on the technical aspect alone. The issues of spectrum management, number portability, the unbundling of the local loop, the economics of interconnection and the long distance switching are areas that need specific attention and should be addressed comprehensively. This will also lead to regulatory flexibility and market and technological development.
Specific areas that need comprehensive analysis include the technical and the economic concepts of the industry.
As the market opens up, a new challenge that we need to consider is if new mobile players that will enter in future, would just re-sell or would they invest and eventually build infrastructure.
The inclusion of Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNO) in the wireless market segment can not be considered as a deregulated wireless market. Whether they will fundamentally assist and improve the welfare of the people or do simply exist in the pre-text of increasing the players, but are using the same congested network.
While competition is good; these are the areas that we need to start discussing, especially the operators to rally to government to start the TAF as soon as possible if they are really caring for their customers.
Otherwise, they are just taking advantage of such situations and intuitional loopholes, causing the new entries and the consumers to suffer.
