& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

BTTB, VoIP and FBCCI

Therefore, if the chairman's claimed international tariff reduction is attributed to the usage of compression technology, he has unwittingly confessed to the guilt of over charging, which in some sense can be termed as similar to extortion. Because the BTTB slashed 80 percent international tariff less than a month ago, while it has been using compression technology for nearly ten years. If compression technology is the factor, then why haven't the customers been given that benefit for the last ten years.
The new chairman of BTTB has denied that BTTB has been using VoIP (voice over internet protocol) technology to process lowcost international phone calls (The Daily Star, January 4, 2004). "We are using a special compressed technology to apply the reduced rate, instead of using the conventional International Trunk Exchange (ITX)," he claimed.
The BTTB chairman's statement is incorrect and counterproductive. The state-owned telecom monopoly has been using DCME (Digital Circuit Multiplexing Equipment) to compress its satellite circuits since early 90s. It enables BTTB to handle increased volume of international calls without leasing additional satellite circuits.
Therefore, BTTB could have significantly slashed its international call charges long time back. Because its costs of leasing the satellite transponders sharply declined for application of DCME technology. On the other hand, its yield from international voice traffic was leapfrogged.
But this public sector telecom monopoly doesn't share that bounty with the public. Rather BTTB has been, mercilessly, overcharging its subscribers with obnoxiously inflated overseas tariff.
Therefore, if the chairman's claimed international tariff reduction is attributed to the usage of
compression technology, he has unwittingly confessed to the guilt of over charging, which in some sense can be termed as similar to extortion. Because the BTTB slashed 80 percent international tariff less than a month ago, while it has been using compression technology for nearly ten years.
If compression technology is the factor, then why haven't the customers been given that benefit
for the last ten years.
The fact is, BTTB is still overcharging its ISD subscribers who dial 00 outgoing international code. But the 80 percent less tariff is applicable if someone dials 012 to call overseas. It is, certainly, a pro-people move the BTTB has taken by applying VoIP technology.
But its newly appointed BTTB chairman's denial on the usage of VoIP is, apparently, due to his lack of technical understanding of its own network.
The chairman had the option of consulting his General Manager (Overseas) prior to denying the usage of VoIP to the media. The GM (Overseas) could have apprised him what the VoIP equipment are doing in BTTB's network.
Evidently the BTTB chairman preferred to subscribe to the cabinet's ignorance, which had, sarcastically, decided to "legalise" VoIP technology without opening the international gateway for unlimited competition. The cabinet may have reasons to be comical, and cynical, by virtue of its composition. But the most senior telecom engineer, as a civil ser-
vant, must not forget his entity and talk accordingly.
The chairman should have also consulted BTTB's legal advisor before claiming exemption from obtaining a licence to use VoIP for low cost overseas calls. BTTB has done nothing wrong about using VoIP to reduce call charges. But the telecom law mandates BTTB obtaining regulatory vetting prior to changing its tariff. BTTB has violated the law.
The state-run telecom monopoly staged a bureaucratic coup in early 2002 and bypassed the telecom regulator while imposing minute-based local call charges. Some retired BTTB officials in the telecom regulatory commission had, unlawfully, forwarded this case to the law ministry and allowed BTTB to violate the law. Since then BTTB has been claiming a false regulatory immunity and continues to undermine the telecom law, as it did again in the event of its VoIP operation. Instead of rising against BTTB's institutional arrogance, the private sector has irresponsibly positioned itself against the people's interest.
The FBCCI president has urged the government to suspend BTTB's cheaper international service (The Daily Star, January 8, 2004). He tabled this demand to ensure fair competition when the private sector launches similar service.
Such utterance from the number one person of the largest national trade body echoes the public sector's inconsistency. It also reflects the poor state of FBCCI's knowledge bank on telecom sector. Because its president seems unaware about the inconsistent cabinet decision pertaining to VoIP and private sector.
The fact is our private sector can never compete with BTTB, with any technology let alone VoIP, unless the government opens international telecoms gateway for unlimited competition, as the government of Sri Lanka did. The FBCCI should send its delegation to Colombo and witness what difference common sense makes in sectoral reforms.
If FBCCI succeeds to force our government using common sense, the consumers and entrepreneurs will be equally benefited. Until then BTTB should make VoIP available to every fixed and mobile phone users, strictly in compliance with the law. The consumers don't care the entity of service provider. All it matters to them is service, at an affordable cost.
The writer is a telecom analyst.