The telecom law mandates any operator to get its tariff vetted by Bangladesh Telecom Regulatory Commission (BTRC). The proposed tariff may be approved or rejected within 60 days. Grameenphone obtained approval for a reduced tariff plan.

The operator decided to launch new packages with bargain call charges from July 1. Its existing post-paid customers, representing less than 30 per cent clientele, would also enjoy this reduction to some extend. The remaining majority of pre-paid users would be rewarded gradually.

But the chairman of BTRC was not consistent with these facts while disclosing Grameen's tariff reduction to the media on June 10, 2003. He talked about overall tariff reduction for all Grameen customers from July 1 and hoped that other mobile operators would follow suit. His statement made headlines in all major national dailies next morning.

Consumers rejoiced for a belated price-cut by the dominant operator and its ripple effects. After all, the regulatory chief himself proclaimed it. But the BTRC chairman's statement was proven misleading. Because Grameenphone has not slashed its call charges across the board on July 1.

Any tariff reduction remains as a strategic and confidential information until the concerned operator decides to disclose it. BTRC, being the lawful custodian of such information, is legally entrusted to safeguard the confidentiality.

Sub-section 2 under section 85 of the telecom law says, "No Commissioner, or consultant, officer or employee or any other person employed by the Commission shall knowingly disclose or allow to be disclosed any confidential information to any other person in a manner so that the information may be used to the benefit of that other person or to the detriment of a related person; disclosure of a confidential information shall be deemed to be a misconduct."

Therefore, the BTRC Chairman's revelation of Grameenphone's tariff reduction was not consistent with the law. It is imperative for BTRC to clarify its position. Otherwise the last remains of its institutional credibility and moral authority will diminish. Evidently the regulator also needs to reform its ethical standards.

The private operators are preparing a list of BTRC officials, whom they had to "gift" mobile phones. The operators may exempt all historical dues but payments are to be made in future. Otherwise the "free" mobile phones of these officials and their friends and families will have no signal.

It is up to the legal scholars to interpret the regulator's non-payment of mobile phone bills. But the telecom law is explicit about taking such undue advantage. It warns about removing a regulatory official for "corruption, misuse of power, gross misconduct or gross negligence of duty". BTRC misleading the consumers with misinformation on fictitious price-cut should also be examined through legal spectacles.

Meanwhile the regulator has been found pretentious while claiming itself a 'pro-subscriber agent'. Because it has no concern for 800 thousand plus mobile-to-mobile users. The government has been denying their access to the state-owned telecom monopoly. Although such denial violates the telecom law, BTRC never intervened to connect these captive mobiles.

But when the puritan mindset impedes proliferation of technology, people ingeniously overrides the obstacles with innovative solutions. Using very small aperture terminal (VSAT) equipment, some entrepreneurs are providing satellite connectivity to the mobile-to-mobile subscribers. It enables them to receive and make overseas calls.

Here the regulatory hierarchy, which is composed of retired civil servants, became holier than the Pope. It has ordered all mobile operators to "take necessary steps" against such "illegal termination" of international calls.

BTRC is a quasi-judicial body and its adjudications are to be strictly in accordance with the telecom law. But the regulator has not defined what "necessary steps" the mobile operator should take against particular users.

Besides, BTRC has no evidence of any "illegal call termination" through mobile phones. All it has is a memo from Bangladesh Telegraph and Telephone Board (BTTB). That's it.

If a nebulous chit from BTTB becomes the heavenly gospel, who needs the telecom law or BTRC? No operator can take any action against any customer unless the bill is updated or there is an inconclusive evidence of misdeed.

Therefore, the regulator should restrain its anti-mobile move to please BTTB. It should rather expeditiously process the BTTB's licence to operate as a telecom provider. That will defuse the hegemony of state-owned telecom monopoly. Because, the operating licence to BTTB would equal its status with all private mobile operators and Internet Service Providers.

Whereas BTRC has been sitting on BTTB's licence application for six months. Why such delay to do this simple paperwork? Why BTRC is deliberately extending the lease of life for BTTB? Is not BTRC acting as an extension of BTTB while issuing vague orders to crack down the mobile users?

Regulatory independence may be a relative issue in various markets. But good governance is a universal standard for effective regulation. Therefore, BTRC has to abide by the legal codes and ethically exercise its authority.

The regulator has to be independent of inhibition in order to be truly independent. Understanding this underlying reality is not an option.

The writer is a telecom analyst