Notes on TATT's response
04/08/08 23:35 Filed in: Musing
In
Tatt's response to my column of July 29, Executive Director Cris
Seecheran seeks to clarify what he views as areas of
miscommunication in my reading of the draft Universality
Implementation Plan for Telecommunications Services.
In a note on my description of Universality Service areas, he describes as a misquote, my description of "parts of Trinidad and Tobago which fall below the country average for accessibility and utilisation."
This was not a quote, nor was it positioned as one. The sentence was meant to summarise the gist of the categorisation in the context of a larger opinion. While it is understandable that as a regulatory body, Tatt must seek to have its wording contractually precise, as a journalist, my responsibility is to summarise for reader understanding. I accept that I may not have made it completely clear that these are, in Mr Seecharan's description (and this is a quote from his letter of response) "one to which it is economically unfeasible to provide affordable basic telecommunications services," I believe that the description was satisfactory for general reader understanding.
Mr Seecharan seems to believe that my concerns about the specific exclusion of that Tatt's consultative document terms mobile telephony are irrelevant because the regulatory body believes that "The exclusion of mobile telephony services from funding does not preclude providers of other mobile services, such as mobile Internet services from having access to the proposed fund."
This logic falters in the face of market realities, however. Only one telecoms provider has delivered a mobile Internet service solution and its deployment has been sluggish. Service providers are most likely to bundle data plans with other profitable services such as, yes, mobile telephony, and this has tended to be the case with most commercial applications of technologies such as 3G and HSPA in developed countries.
The likelihood of a business case emerging for separate transmission of technologies which have been most profitable when bundled with voice plans will depend on the extent of the Universality fund's subsidy, which will then, essentially, have to pay providers not to offer voice plans on those networks.
Tatt's argument that services and technologies are separate is valid and accepted, but market realities suggest that certain technologies are adopted more widely when bundled in customer friendly ways.
Mr Seecharan takes further issue with my note that there is no clear statement on how the two proposed reports on the fund will be offered to the public. I stand by this statement.
In his note of response, the Tatt Executive Director states that "At a minimum, publication is normally done by publication on TATT's website with newspaper notices to that effect." All well and good, but that isn't stated in the consultation document.
It is a pleasure to see Tatt responding so promptly to the initiation of a discussion about proposals that can only redound to the benefit of Trinidad and Tobago's citizens.
Mark Lyndersay
July 30, 2008
In a note on my description of Universality Service areas, he describes as a misquote, my description of "parts of Trinidad and Tobago which fall below the country average for accessibility and utilisation."
This was not a quote, nor was it positioned as one. The sentence was meant to summarise the gist of the categorisation in the context of a larger opinion. While it is understandable that as a regulatory body, Tatt must seek to have its wording contractually precise, as a journalist, my responsibility is to summarise for reader understanding. I accept that I may not have made it completely clear that these are, in Mr Seecharan's description (and this is a quote from his letter of response) "one to which it is economically unfeasible to provide affordable basic telecommunications services," I believe that the description was satisfactory for general reader understanding.
Mr Seecharan seems to believe that my concerns about the specific exclusion of that Tatt's consultative document terms mobile telephony are irrelevant because the regulatory body believes that "The exclusion of mobile telephony services from funding does not preclude providers of other mobile services, such as mobile Internet services from having access to the proposed fund."
This logic falters in the face of market realities, however. Only one telecoms provider has delivered a mobile Internet service solution and its deployment has been sluggish. Service providers are most likely to bundle data plans with other profitable services such as, yes, mobile telephony, and this has tended to be the case with most commercial applications of technologies such as 3G and HSPA in developed countries.
The likelihood of a business case emerging for separate transmission of technologies which have been most profitable when bundled with voice plans will depend on the extent of the Universality fund's subsidy, which will then, essentially, have to pay providers not to offer voice plans on those networks.
Tatt's argument that services and technologies are separate is valid and accepted, but market realities suggest that certain technologies are adopted more widely when bundled in customer friendly ways.
Mr Seecharan takes further issue with my note that there is no clear statement on how the two proposed reports on the fund will be offered to the public. I stand by this statement.
In his note of response, the Tatt Executive Director states that "At a minimum, publication is normally done by publication on TATT's website with newspaper notices to that effect." All well and good, but that isn't stated in the consultation document.
It is a pleasure to see Tatt responding so promptly to the initiation of a discussion about proposals that can only redound to the benefit of Trinidad and Tobago's citizens.
Mark Lyndersay
July 30, 2008