Dear Editor,
I read with passing interest the September 4 Kaieteur News article, ‘Ramroop internet company launches hi-speed service without telecoms licence.’ Knowing that the new broadcast legislation is imminent and the service provided by INet is needed in the off-coast areas of Guyana, I was willing to look the other way for the time being. After reading the misleading response by George Melville, ‘A telecommunications licence was issued to iNet over 14 years ago’ in the letters column of Stabroek News, September 6 my interest changed.
INet attempts to kerfuffle us by claiming that it has a telecommunication licence from NFMU that puts it on par with GTT and Digicel circa 2000. This cannot be accurate since the NFMU can only grant a licence to transceive data on a particular frequency as long as it falls outside the 2.5 and 5 GHz radio frequency band. NFMU is not the competent authority to grant a telecoms licence; it only has the power to manage the national airwaves by allocating spectrum to entities that are already in possession of a licence from the Broadcast Authority. I am contending that no such licence was granted to INet as that would violate the 1990 Government-GTT/ATN agreement which has the force of law.
I am further contending that INet Inc is transmitting signals on the valuable data spectrum for which it has no permission from NFMU. Most likely it will utilize the VSAT technology on the Ka-band to achieve its uplink-downlink which requires it to utilize the 18–30 GHz microwave frequency spectrum. However, I can find no such permission being granted to any company using the name INet Inc.
If INet has a telecommunication licence on par with that of GTT and Digicel then it should properly apply to the PUC before rolling out its overpriced fee structure and open its claim of 10Mbps data throughput to public scrutiny. My research revealed that INet provides equipment to facilitate overseas calls and offers a rate structure to various international destinations directly violating existing laws that allows GTT to be the sole gateway for international call traffic in and out of Guyana. I challenge Mr Melville to prove to the Guyanese public that INet has a licence to provide such a service.
While INet has been living on the grace of the Guyanese public and regulatory bodies who have all turned the other cheek because of several lax regulatory procedures, it cannot take this as a liberty to show blatant disrespect for the truth. I await the press conference by Mr Melville and associates at which they will display their licences and permissions along with receipts that they were making the necessary payments to upkeep the said licences and permissions. Until then the Guyanese public should treat Mr Melville’s claim with caution.
Yours faithfully,
Leonard Craig
