The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.    

URCA and Cable Bahamas are going at each other in the media on CBL’s tower construction exercise, but does anyone else care?  

On April 15, 2015, URCA issued an Interim Order forbidding CBL from erecting or completing any towers anywhere in The Bahamas until URCA has completed a full investigation and determined whether it would reinforce, change or revoke the Order. CBL has agreed to obey the Order.

CBL argues that it needs to erect towers and that the towers are a part of its infrastructure wireless broadband service. They say that their construction of new infrastructure is not subject to URCA’s oversight under their licence terms. CBL also argues that URCA’s intervention is “unprecedented” and likely to have an ulterior motive and that they did not have an opportunity to address URCA’s concerns prior to the order being issued.

URCA argues that it is duty bound to be concerned with construction that could be a public nuisance or impact the environment and that CBL had not justified to URCA the necessity of the towers despite URCA’s requests for same.

What exactly is going on here?

This is not the first time that CBL has acted first and sought forgiveness later. Not a bad business strategy if the risks have been weighed. It is a strategy reminiscent of Digicel as it applied for licences in new markets. The advantage is that you get a “jump start” on your competition.

Does CBL really need to construct such towers at this point and time? Aren’t they already offering wireless broadband services? Isn’t their Rev Voice service, predominately a wireless service? The clever answer of CBL is network redundancy.

CBL had to know that their construction of communications towers at this point in the bidding process for the second cellular licence would cause concern and generate complaints likely from the mobile incumbent, protective of its monopoly or from CBL’s fellow bidders in the process.

And what of URCA? Was URCA constrained to act as the regulator of the sector in the interest of the public and the environment or has URCA responded to external complaints and or directives?

The restraint Order is for an initial period of three months – to July 17th – by which time, with a bit of luck and none of the usual delays the second cellular licensee will have been identified.

And what if CBL after an extended period of investigations, challenges URCA’s authority to prevent its infrastructure build out in a tangible way?

In URCA’s 2013 Annual Report and 2014 Annual Plan, URCA specifically stated that it intended to introduce Facilities Infrastructure Sharing Regulations by the end of 2014 as a necessary component of mobile liberalisation.

On December 10, 2014, URCA had only just issued the Public Consultation document on the Regulations which dragged on until March 11, 2015, As at today’s date URCA has not issued formal Regulations for facilities sharing. There is, therefore, at present, a grey area on the regulation surrounding the construction of towers which CBL has apparently, rightly exploited as an astute business strategy.

The construction of a cellular tower can cost upwards of half a million dollars. Given the flat topography of our country and the paucity of high rise buildings (which can substitute for towers), towers are essential to any wireless network. A business does not embark on such an undertaking without a business plan to establish need and returns.

Only CBL knows the reason it has chosen to construct towers at this sensitive time and in the absence of timely regulations it is questionable as to whether CBL has a case to answer.

Should CBL not be awarded the second cellular licence will it be allowed to continue with its tower build out? Will CBL, more importantly be interested in continuing with its tower build out? Certainly the possibility of leasing space on these towers to the 2nd cellular operator could offset costs whilst depriving the incumbent of revenue.

Only time will tell all.

As we like to say “Every goodbye ain’t gone”!

Has Digicel really left The Bahamas?

FELICITY L JOHNSON       

Nassau,

May 19, 2015.