Revisiting Bangladesh's Telecommunications Regulatory Act: A Call for Clear Jurisdiction

The Bangladesh Telecommunications Regulatory Act (BTRA) is undergoing a critical revision. Since its inception in 2001, a significant issue with the Act has been its overreaching definition and jurisdiction. The current draft continuesto perpetuate these legacy issues, prompting concerns within the telecommunications and broader regulatory communities.

Traditionally, the BTRA has aimed to extend its regulatory power beyond the realm of telecommunications. This approach, however, fundamentally misunderstands the nature of telecom as a pipeline for communication. While telecommunications technology is undoubtedly more powerful than traditional postal or telegraph services, allowing real-time information transmission, the role of a telecom regulator should remain focused on the pipeline itself, not the content that flows through it. Extending regulatory oversight to encompass the creators and consumers of information has led to significant legal and regulatory confusion.

Consider the example of treason, a crime in any nation. Disseminating treasonous or libelous statements is unquestionably illegal. However, if writing and sending treasonous information via postal services does not incriminate the postal service, it is illogical to hold telecom network operators responsible for such content transmitted over their networks. Similarly, selling counterfeit or smuggled products is a criminal offense, but it falls under the purview of the penal code or the Ministry of Commerce. The platforms used by retailers to promote or communicate their services should not be the regulatory focus.

In today's world, nearly every aspect of life is online, including education, retail, and entertainment. Attempting to ensure safety and security across all these domains using telecom regulations and regulators would lead to severe conflicts between regulatory bodies. Such overlaps can either deprive citizens of necessary protections or burden them with excessive compliance costs. It is essential to recognize that telecom regulations should be confined to their specific jurisdiction, focusing on the infrastructure and transmission aspects rather than the content or services that utilize these networks.

Emerging technologies such as Over-the-Top (OTT) services, artificial intelligence, robotics, and automation require industry-specific regulations. Trying to encompass these under telecom regulations is impractical and counterproductive. A clear separation of powers and responsibilities is necessary for effective governance. Without this separation, the Act will continue to fall short of its potential.

The core objective of the BTRA should be to ensure that all citizens, both human and non-human, have access to state-of-the-art telecommunications technologies at an optimal cost. Additionally, it should protect investors in this industry from undue interference, disruption, and interception, except when required by law enforcement agencies for legitimate purposes.

This revision period provides an opportunity to realign the BTRA's focus, ensuring it stays within its rightful jurisdiction and avoids overreach. Telecommunications infrastructure is vital for national development, and its regulation should be precise and limited to its technical and operational aspects. Expanding the Act's scope to include content regulation dilutes its effectiveness and creates unnecessary legal entanglements.

For instance, regulating OTT services under the telecom framework conflates two distinct areas: content delivery and infrastructure management. OTT services, which include streaming platforms, social media, and other internet-based content providers, operate independently of the physical telecom networks. These services require separate regulatory frameworks that address their unique challenges and operational dynamics.

Similarly, advancements in artificial intelligence, robotics, and automation are creating new industries and transforming existing ones. These technologies present specific regulatory needs related to ethics, safety, privacy, and economic impact. Trying to govern these under the telecom umbrella ignores their distinct regulatory requirements and stifles innovation.

A robust telecommunications regulatory framework should focus on enhancing network infrastructure, promoting fair competition, ensuring consumer protection, and facilitating investment. This involves setting standards for network reliability, data security, and service quality, as well as fostering an environment where telecom operators can thrive without unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.

The revised Act should also prioritize collaboration with other regulatory bodies to address overlapping issues. For example, the BTRA can work with the Ministry of Commerce on e-commerce regulations or with the Ministry of Information on digital content policies. Such collaborative efforts can streamline regulatory processes and provide clear guidance to stakeholders, avoiding the pitfalls of jurisdictional conflicts.

Ultimately, the goal should be a telecommunications regulatory framework that is agile, focused, and capable of adapting to technological advancements without overstepping its boundaries. By ensuring that the BTRA's mandate is clear and confined to telecommunications infrastructure and services, we can create a more coherent and effective regulatory environment.

In conclusion, the revision of the Bangladesh Telecommunications Regulatory Act is a crucial opportunity to correct past overreach and establish a focused, efficient regulatory framework. Let the BTRA concentrate on its core mission: providing advanced telecommunications technologies at optimal costs, protecting industry investments, and collaborating with other regulatory bodies to address broader issues. Only through such a targeted approach can we ensure that Bangladesh's telecommunications sector thrives, fostering innovation and growth in the digital age.

Abu Nazam M Tanveer Hossain: Public Policy Advocate