The Tribune

Age ain't nothin but a number. And so, apparently, is communications. Especially when it comes to finally, oh finally, fostering some competition in the Bahamian market, if the regulator had not seemingly bottled it. For the Utilities Regulation & Competition Authority's (URCA) 'statement of results' on its number portability consultation appears to be an attempt to make sure it offended neither of the two market 'giants', namely the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) and Cable Bahamas. It also looks suspiciously like a triumph of decision-making by making no decision at all, instead kicking the major issues for determining how number portability will work over to a Working Group, which will feature both URCA and industry representatives. Given that competition, and the pricing, service and product benefits expected to follow, are primarily intended to aid Bahamian consumers, it would appear that the primary goal of liberalisation, the Communications Act and accompanying regulations is being stymied. While Cable Bahamas' position is laced with self-interest, given that number portability would help it to attract away ever-increasing numbers of BTC fixed-line customers to its own ReVoice service, its assertion that the issue is the "number one priority" for Bahamian consumers is not open to serious challenge. Number portability is one of two elements vital to fostering competition in the Bahamian telecommunications market. The first one, interconnection, has largely been dealt with, but number portability would allow Bahamian businesses and households to keep the same number when they switch communications provider. Without this being in place, the incentive for consumers to change operator - from the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) to Cable Bahamas - is much diminished, especially for businesses who need to maintain the same number for clients to contact them. Cable Bahamas had proposed a year-end 2011 deadline for implementing fixed-line number portability in the Bahamas, but URCA's rejection of this, and decision to throw the key decisions over to the Working Group, has effectively pushed its introduction back to mid-2013 at earliest. While pledging that "service provider number portability for fixed communications services be implemented and operational as soon as economically and technically feasible", URCA rejected Cable Bahamas' suggestion on the grounds that Section Five of the Communications Act required it to account for "the costs and implications of number portability", an issue necessitating wider consultation with communications carriers. Adhering to Cable Bahamas' target date, URCA suggested, could force it "to act in an arbitrary manner" and "prejudice" the consultation/information gathering process it must undertake. To Tribune Business this seems, at best, a fudge of an issue critical to not just the communications market and Bahamian consumers, but the competitiveness of the wider Bahamian economy. The Working Group has yet to be formed, and the fast-approaching Christmas season may intervene here, too. It has '64 weeks' from the time of its creation to come up with a working solution. One wonders whether URCA's posture would be different if it had someone in the chief executive's seat displaying strong leadership. Indeed, the greatest achievement of those who opposed BTC's privatisation may have been to hobble URCA at a critical time in the market's development by forcing out previous chief executive Usman Saadat. The number portability decision has all the hallmarks of an organisation frightened to make a decision for fear of upsetting powerful forces, something not unheard of in the Bahamas. The wider ramifications could be a further setback to this nation's development.