Latest update April 28th, 2026 12:30 AM
Jun 05, 2013 Letters
Dear Mr Editor,
I refer to an article in Stabroek News “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 overlooked the events which led up to the two operators receiving a virtual monopoly on wireless cable in all parts of Guyanaas being 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 surely it cannot have escaped Melville’s attention that these two cable systems operating as they do in a primary zone i.e. Georgetown has in fact already penetrated the Guyanese market and attracted all persons who can afford to pay their monthlyfee.
He does not even pause to consider if more services would increase competition and lend itself to poor services as providers abound in such a small market place 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 amount 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. This survey and analysis will 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. We certainly don’t want to jump from one pot of confusion to another.
In Melville’s case, surely he is not suggesting a third wireless operator, without determining if the market can support it!
Licenses for wireless cable must be allocated in a more reliable and transparent manner i.e. by bidding for the franchise to operate in certain zones. for a specific period. And wired cable must not be ruled out in the major cities such as Georgetown. Everyone must pay an annual fee to the consolidated fund for the use of spectrum if wireless.
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. 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 from having a monopoly.
At the end of the contracted period if the provider has not been operating properly,good signal, reliability, properly priced services etc. it will have to stop providing 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 with what goes on. They have very much to do with what goes on, since Jagdeo is not allocating 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 due to a flawed method of looking at these problems by people like Melville and the PPP?.
Yours faithfully
Tony Vieira
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.