WITHIN the last week two matters of particular consumer concern have occurred.  The first was that the Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission His Honour Justice (retd) Prem Persaud CCH would be demitting office and the second was the issuance of PUC Order #2/2017 granting new landline rates to the Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Co. (GTT).
Justice Persaud is the third Chairman of the PUC coming in the line of succession from the great Joseph Tyndall who was the first Chairman and then Justice Mennon.  Each of these three Chairmen made his own valuable contribution to the building of the PUC and to Regulation in Guyana.

Justice Persaud brought to the post his wide experience as a High Court Judge which was enriched by his study of Regulation as a theoretical discipline and his intimate acquaintance with Regulation activities and Regulators in the Caribbean.  This resulted in Justice Persaud becoming a Regulator who increased in excellence with the passing of each year.
His conduct of PUC hearings and his Rulings always bore the stamp of courtesy, research and learning, wisdom and fairness and all respected and accepted them.  Although the GCA and other appearers before the PUC may not have fully agreed with all his Rulings, all acutely realized that nothing better was possible.  He was always approachable and available to members of the public and to stakeholders and in particular officers of the Public Utilities.

There are four notable achievements of Chairman Persaud over the last two years we would like to mention: The first was Order # 1 of 2015 dismissing GTT’s application for increases in landline rates.  This Order was welcomed throughout Guyana and was highly commended in Caribbean Regulation circles.  The second was the acquisition and remodeling of a new PUC headquarters in the prestigious Queenstown neighbourhood.  This property is owned by the PUC and has met a long-felt need for the PUC to have a home of its own.  The third was being able to have the Commission’s 2016 Accounts audited and published in exemplary time and being in surplus.  And the fourth was the publication of the 2016 Annual Report in good time keeping the consumer-friendly style which he had pioneered many years ago.  There are, of course, other notable achievements of Chairman Persaud over the years such as the institution of the very comprehensive website but our focus is only on the last two years.

The Consumer community feels a sense of loss at Justice Persaud’s departure from the Commission but we are confident that he would unstintingly proffer his advice if sought by the Commission.  In the same vein, the GCA welcomes the new Chairperson.
The second matter is the issuance of PUC Order #2/2017 which is the result of GTT asking for a review of Order #1/2015.  Order #2/2917 is characteristically well-written and explicit.  We could not review that Order in detail owing to the constraint of space but those interested will be able to read it on the PUC’s website.  But there are a few features in this Order we would like to highlight for the benefit of consumers:-

(1) For years, GTT has been adamantly claiming that it was “guaranteed” a minimum of 15% profit with a maximum unlimited.  In point of fact, their “monopoly” Contract of 1990 allowed them only an “entitlement” (not a guarantee) of 15% dependent on their doing certain things such as their providing universal landline services for as many residents of Guyana who required such services.  They had never performed this vital contractual requirement and thousands of people still want telephones which GTT cannot or do not install. [The GCA had long advocated that GTT’s “monopoly” Contract had long been void because they breached it in vital terms and they should have ceased accessioning the benefits of monopoly such as waiver of Customs duties].

(2) By Digicel’s competition, GTT had lost a great slice of their cellular market to Digicel.  GTT had sought to explain this loss of its market share by claiming that it was not allowed sufficient sums to adequately deal with the landline service.  GTT’s reasoning is not logical since cellular and landline are two different services, and secondly, GTT complacent in its monopoly, had long neglected the landline by not effecting repairs on time and making little effort to supply landlines to the thousands who wanted them.  With the coming of the lucrative cellular business, they further neglected the landline to focus on the cellular.  If GTT could get the landline service back to normality with timely repairs to faults and steady supply of new landline services, the Company would return to its former great profitability.  Order #2/2017 opens the door to GTT to achieve this.

(3) The PUC has granted an increase in landline rates subject to the following:-
(a) GTT must complete the end to end provisioning of the FTTX Phase 1 in La Grange, and to commence the commercial launch of services in the areas which they have identified.
(b) GTT must submit quarterly detailed appraisal of progress showing the number of new services rolled out, inclusive of rural areas.  This should not be less than 1000 lines per quarter, which may include 25% re-issue lines.
(c) GTT has been very slow in fault repairing and they must submit a quarterly report of the average time taken to resolve consumer complaints – residential and business.
(d) The company should determine a daily compensatory credit for consumers whose fault complaints are not remedied within the time-frame for addressing such complaints.

The PUC will continuously monitor GTT to ensure that the Company improves the quality of service offered the public and must demonstrate that there is an urgent and genuine effort to provide services to outstanding applicants.
GTT must seize the opportunity of once again being in the initiative and in the leadership role and increasing profitability.