The Bill liberalizing the Telecommunications Industry was recently passed by Parliament leaving a post-liberalization scenario in which a great deal of debris has to be cleared. Achieving success in liberalization depends upon the quick clearing of this debris.
The first debris that has to be cleared, that is the first challenge that has to be met, is the monopoly company Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company (GTT), opening a new front and saying that the Government of Guyana has to honour the Monopoly Contract and presumably paying them a large sum of money. The Contract they are referring to is the one made in 1990 giving them a monopoly of the country’s telephone service, which contract was renewed in 2010.

The Contract of 1990 gave GTT a monopoly but the company also had to perform certain things as consideration for the monopoly. One of the main things it had to do was provide 15,000 land lines per year to the Guyanese public and install landline services in certain Interior locations. These Interior services have become even more important with the developing mining industry. The company did not perform this important obligation. Non-performance of this and other obligations would seem to consumer people to neutralize the contractual claim ATN/GTT is bringing on the Government.

Outside of the Contract, GTT was responsible for other obligations, among the more important being the payment of Income Taxes. The Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) had claimed Income Taxes for the so-called Advisory Fees of 6% of gross revenues which GTT made a private contract to pay over to its principal Atlantic Telenetwork (ATN). To stymie payment, GTT, in usual style, invoked the Courts, well aware of the length of time the Court system takes to resolve matters.
But at the same time, ATN in its annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America recognized the possible liability of US$33.2 million or $6.9 billion owed to the GRA and the Government of Guyana. The GRA needs to pursue this claim to recover its $6.9 billion before the Statute of Limitations overtakes it.

Shortly after GTT was established, both the Guyana Consumers Association and the Public Utilities Commission demanded that the Company did its accounting in the normal way, and they have been making this demand to the present time. GTT lumps together all income and expenditure so there is no possibility of properly gauging segmental income and expenditure. This system could lead to fraud and corruption and prevents the PUC or the Government of Guyana from having knowledge of the Company’s finances and could provide a cover for GTT’s transfers to its principal ATN. This failure to disaggregate its accounts would result in one being uncertain of the veracity of monetary claims.
This system of lumping all income and expenditure together has led to the concealment of income as was shown by the GCA, when, by Tariff1/2014, GTT was demanding enormous landline rate increases.

The GCA showed where the US$60 Million spent to establish the cellular phone system was generated by the landline and so was the approximately US$30.millions spent on the undersea cable, or when the fibre optic and copper lines belonging to the landline segment had been used to transmit Internet and Mobile traffic without any costing or accounting notice. This failure by GTT to disaggregate its accounts puts any monetary claims by GTT into the category of the subjective and must be balanced against all the omissions and lapses of the company.
For some years now, GTT, a locally registered company, has been transferring income-bearing assets paid for with funds generated in Guyana to other countries and out of the company’s hands. One of the most valuable assets so treated is the undersea cable costing US$30 million which was transferred to a company in the Virgin Islands without payment. This kind of activity must be taken into account as against claims made by GTT.

Customer Deposits is another issue that must be settled in this post-liberalization era. GTT has collected hundreds of millions of dollars in customer deposits and has used this money for its own purposes without paying the customer his interest of 8%. During the 25 years GTT has been collecting these deposits some customers have died or have emigrated without receiving any of the money due to them. Such monies must be deposited with the Public Trustee. Present customers must now begin to receive their interest!
There are other issues of this nature we intended to mention as well discussion on the structures to effectuate the regime of liberalization but will have to defer these so as not to exceed our space limit. In parenthesis, the material in this article has been presented in memorandums and letters to the PUC over a period by the GCA.