Pakistan has come a long way in the development and growth of international communications technology (ITC) and the telecom industry, but must now concentrate on following policies that address infrastructure development, creating a skilled IT workforce, and allow private enterprise to be in the driver’s seat for future growth, according to a recent study.
The study done by Pakistan-born IT specialist Imran Chaudhry, now at the George Mason University here, draws a comparison between Pakistan and India and how they have fared in the ITC sector. India, he finds, has made major strides in ICT and telecom and now must take steps to build on its past successes. Common issues of both countries involve allowing their rural populations to become interconnected with their urban centres. Much like the railway and canal systems function to allow the conduct of trade and commerce, telecom can be used to join together far-flung, rural and economically neglected areas of both nations, he argues.
The two countries, he writes, “simply have to learn to get along. The stakes for each are too high to further allow tensions to fester among them. ICT and telecom can function as a bridge for improving bilateral relations and both would benefit greatly from this. In other words, the two neighbours must leverage their common history to build a bright and prosperous future.”
In Pakistan, competition in value-added services began in 1994, when the government awarded 15 domestic data communications licences with international access through Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd (PTCL). The Pakistan Telecom Authority was established in 1997 to oversee the transfer of telecom services to the private sector. Throughout India, phone services were provided by three government-owned companies. India adopted a policy after 1994 to expand and improve its telecom infrastructure by encouraging private sector participation in telecom services. A new telecom policy took effect in 1999 under which existing basic and cellular licensees can continue under their existing contracts, while new licensees are to be charged a one-time entry fee and subjected to a revenue-sharing arrangement. Pakistan has a 50 percent greater outgoing traffic per subscriber, while India has almost 50 percent more telephone mainlines per 1,000 people. Waiting time in Pakistan for a connection is a year longer than in India. In India there are four mobile phones per 1,000 people, compared to two in Pakistan.
Chaudhry’s study finds the lack of ICT expenditure data in Pakistan is an “area of concern,” indicating that compiling such data is simply not a priority or that the figures are so low that it is considered better to let them go unreported. “The results of telecom-related public policy decisions will be difficult to gauge if the data is either incomplete or unreported,” he points out.
Pakistan’s telecom market is presently grappling with the transition from a regulated state-owned monopoly to a deregulated competitive structure. The government has a target to increase national teledensity to 7 percent (around 10 million lines) by 2010. To achieve this target, about 750,000 additional lines need to be installed every year. The planned privatisation of the state-owned telecommunications monopoly, PTCL, is an essential feature of the changing marketplace.
The prospects for strong development will continue to be low, unless rigid regulatory policies are removed and serious restructuring takes place, he argues.
According to Chaudhry, the wireless market in India is closing in on the 35 million-subscriber mark. Pakistan by contrast, has just over 3.5 million users. Pakistan appears to be headed in the same direction with the PTA taking steps to open up the wireless market. Pakistan believes that it can sustain six wireless players into the long term, pointing out that it had a wireless penetration rate of 2.46 percent at the end of 2003, short of the country’s wire-line teledensity of 2.79 percent. The PTA has sought to dispel fears about the country’s frequent change of policies in regard to wireless telephony, claiming that there will be no more changes for at least five years.
Chaudhry writes that the overall scores of each nation dropped between 2002 and 2003. India’s ranking in terms of telecommunications advancement slipped from 43 to 46 while Pakistan remained at 57 during this period. An examination of individual category scores highlights areas of contrast. The connectivity environment figures (India 1.7, Pakistan 1.1) highlight how overall technology penetration is greater in India. A new report by Telegeography forecasts that India’s international submarine cable capacity will have grown 17-fold in just three years, reflecting the results of the government policy over the past decade of easing telecom controls.
Consumer and business adoption figures (India 3.0. Pakistan 1.8) reflect concerns, including the sluggish investment by the Pakistani government in IT. It also highlights a disparity in the use of the Internet in the conduct of E-commerce. It appears that this is the next area which India will have to address if it is to gain the full domestic benefits of the telecom revolution. Pakistan will be able to realise such potential only once its IT infrastructure and public policy evolution has matured, according to the study.
Chaudhry finds that both foreign and domestic investors are jittery to take on risks in both countries where there might be perceived uncertainty. Pakistan faces challenges in this regard if it is to attract continued outside capital. A necessary step is the smooth transition from one elected government to another. India on the other hand, will have ensure that its ICT and telecom policies do not become unnecessarily bogged down by industry challenges in the courts. Both countries face challenges, each of their own nature. India has an advantage because of a 15 percent higher literacy rate than Pakistan.
“Education policies in Pakistan will have to keep pace with ICT and telecom policy development if the country is to position itself in the global IT marketplace, while India will have to pay closer attention to its rural population if its general population is to reap the benefits of the Internet age,” according to the study. The Indian government has followed a general policy of privatisation, and continues to fine-tune it as market conditions change, he writes, adding, “Pakistan will be well served in closely heeding this evolution so that when its time comes, it is able to similarly develop policies that serve the public good, and enact legislation that serves to level the ever-changing ICT and telecom playing field.”
Chaudhry finds that Pakistan is not in the same position as India presently in terms of a global IT presence. Rather than falling further behind, an aggressive policy of information exchange through the Internet, research and development entities and ICT think tanks should be adopted, he recommends. Although India is currently the default choice as offshore supplier for the communications industry, many other countries are fast emerging as challengers. The second-tier challengers include Canada, China, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Mexico, Northern Ireland, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, and South Africa. In addition, many countries in the third and fourth tiers are aggressively vying for offshore business. With global competition heating up among offshore destinations, India finds itself in the position of protecting its turf, which it cannot afford to have threatened by unstable relations with its neighbour. He writes that Pakistan realises how the Internet is now an instrument of power. The challenge lies in adopting policies that allow the general population to be able realise its full potential, the good and the bad.
Courtesy: www.dailytime.pk
The study done by Pakistan-born IT specialist Imran Chaudhry, now at the George Mason University here, draws a comparison between Pakistan and India and how they have fared in the ITC sector. India, he finds, has made major strides in ICT and telecom and now must take steps to build on its past successes. Common issues of both countries involve allowing their rural populations to become interconnected with their urban centres. Much like the railway and canal systems function to allow the conduct of trade and commerce, telecom can be used to join together far-flung, rural and economically neglected areas of both nations, he argues.
The two countries, he writes, “simply have to learn to get along. The stakes for each are too high to further allow tensions to fester among them. ICT and telecom can function as a bridge for improving bilateral relations and both would benefit greatly from this. In other words, the two neighbours must leverage their common history to build a bright and prosperous future.”
In Pakistan, competition in value-added services began in 1994, when the government awarded 15 domestic data communications licences with international access through Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd (PTCL). The Pakistan Telecom Authority was established in 1997 to oversee the transfer of telecom services to the private sector. Throughout India, phone services were provided by three government-owned companies. India adopted a policy after 1994 to expand and improve its telecom infrastructure by encouraging private sector participation in telecom services. A new telecom policy took effect in 1999 under which existing basic and cellular licensees can continue under their existing contracts, while new licensees are to be charged a one-time entry fee and subjected to a revenue-sharing arrangement. Pakistan has a 50 percent greater outgoing traffic per subscriber, while India has almost 50 percent more telephone mainlines per 1,000 people. Waiting time in Pakistan for a connection is a year longer than in India. In India there are four mobile phones per 1,000 people, compared to two in Pakistan.
Chaudhry’s study finds the lack of ICT expenditure data in Pakistan is an “area of concern,” indicating that compiling such data is simply not a priority or that the figures are so low that it is considered better to let them go unreported. “The results of telecom-related public policy decisions will be difficult to gauge if the data is either incomplete or unreported,” he points out.
Pakistan’s telecom market is presently grappling with the transition from a regulated state-owned monopoly to a deregulated competitive structure. The government has a target to increase national teledensity to 7 percent (around 10 million lines) by 2010. To achieve this target, about 750,000 additional lines need to be installed every year. The planned privatisation of the state-owned telecommunications monopoly, PTCL, is an essential feature of the changing marketplace.
The prospects for strong development will continue to be low, unless rigid regulatory policies are removed and serious restructuring takes place, he argues.
According to Chaudhry, the wireless market in India is closing in on the 35 million-subscriber mark. Pakistan by contrast, has just over 3.5 million users. Pakistan appears to be headed in the same direction with the PTA taking steps to open up the wireless market. Pakistan believes that it can sustain six wireless players into the long term, pointing out that it had a wireless penetration rate of 2.46 percent at the end of 2003, short of the country’s wire-line teledensity of 2.79 percent. The PTA has sought to dispel fears about the country’s frequent change of policies in regard to wireless telephony, claiming that there will be no more changes for at least five years.
Chaudhry writes that the overall scores of each nation dropped between 2002 and 2003. India’s ranking in terms of telecommunications advancement slipped from 43 to 46 while Pakistan remained at 57 during this period. An examination of individual category scores highlights areas of contrast. The connectivity environment figures (India 1.7, Pakistan 1.1) highlight how overall technology penetration is greater in India. A new report by Telegeography forecasts that India’s international submarine cable capacity will have grown 17-fold in just three years, reflecting the results of the government policy over the past decade of easing telecom controls.
Consumer and business adoption figures (India 3.0. Pakistan 1.8) reflect concerns, including the sluggish investment by the Pakistani government in IT. It also highlights a disparity in the use of the Internet in the conduct of E-commerce. It appears that this is the next area which India will have to address if it is to gain the full domestic benefits of the telecom revolution. Pakistan will be able to realise such potential only once its IT infrastructure and public policy evolution has matured, according to the study.
Chaudhry finds that both foreign and domestic investors are jittery to take on risks in both countries where there might be perceived uncertainty. Pakistan faces challenges in this regard if it is to attract continued outside capital. A necessary step is the smooth transition from one elected government to another. India on the other hand, will have ensure that its ICT and telecom policies do not become unnecessarily bogged down by industry challenges in the courts. Both countries face challenges, each of their own nature. India has an advantage because of a 15 percent higher literacy rate than Pakistan.
“Education policies in Pakistan will have to keep pace with ICT and telecom policy development if the country is to position itself in the global IT marketplace, while India will have to pay closer attention to its rural population if its general population is to reap the benefits of the Internet age,” according to the study. The Indian government has followed a general policy of privatisation, and continues to fine-tune it as market conditions change, he writes, adding, “Pakistan will be well served in closely heeding this evolution so that when its time comes, it is able to similarly develop policies that serve the public good, and enact legislation that serves to level the ever-changing ICT and telecom playing field.”
Chaudhry finds that Pakistan is not in the same position as India presently in terms of a global IT presence. Rather than falling further behind, an aggressive policy of information exchange through the Internet, research and development entities and ICT think tanks should be adopted, he recommends. Although India is currently the default choice as offshore supplier for the communications industry, many other countries are fast emerging as challengers. The second-tier challengers include Canada, China, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Mexico, Northern Ireland, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, and South Africa. In addition, many countries in the third and fourth tiers are aggressively vying for offshore business. With global competition heating up among offshore destinations, India finds itself in the position of protecting its turf, which it cannot afford to have threatened by unstable relations with its neighbour. He writes that Pakistan realises how the Internet is now an instrument of power. The challenge lies in adopting policies that allow the general population to be able realise its full potential, the good and the bad.
Courtesy: www.dailytime.pk
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment