EFFECT OF BLOCKING UNREGISTERED RURAL SIM USERS AND UNIVERSAL SERVICE OBLIGATIONS: SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED?

INTRODUCTION

Registration of SIM cards by users has become an obligation after the directive by the National Communication Authority (NCA) and all telecommunication service users have been given a deadline and ultimatum to register or be cut off from the service. The principle of registration of SIM cards is a laudable idea which is in the interest of the ordinary Ghanaian not only to protect ourselves but to be able to receive the kind of personalized services that technology can bring because we can be identified with the ownership of the SIM. Like any personal data collection exercise it comes with its own a likely abuse of the collected data which may put the very Ghanaian in whose interest the registration is being done at grave risk especially with the absence of a Data Protection Act. Countries that have done this like South Africa have put in place a sector specific law “The Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act (RICA)” to guard against any possible abuse. Once you register your SIM it is just like having registered your car and when stolen don’t we have to report to the police? Who is telling us that under what law? What if my SIM card is stolen and used for criminal activities? How do I protect myself or I become a suspect without being given the legal right for protection? In my opinion, Ghana’s implementation has unfortunately been taken too much from the perspective of “National Security” to the effect that “we are all guilty and must register to prove our innocence”. Good concept, bad process if you ask me.

My concern for this article is not so much on the process which I bet “who cares, BIG BROTHER has spoken and that is history” but to create awareness on salvaging the impact of the directive to cut off service to non-registered users in the rural areas who the Government owe “Universal Service Obligations” to.  Are we cutting the rural telecommunication service user off just because they are less privileged to have the same facilities and opportunity we urban dwellers have to register?

The policy objective behind Universal Service is to ensure that those telecommunications services which are used by the majority and which are essential to full social and economic inclusion are made available to everybody upon reasonable request in an appropriate fashion and at an affordable price. This principle is designed to ensure that people on low incomes, those in remote rural areas, those with disabilities and various other groups who might be described as more vulnerable do not miss out on the advantages telephony can bring. We in the urban areas owe “Universal Service” obligations to those in the rural areas who feed us and we need to be circumspect in passing Directives that may have grave negative impact of widening the gab with our disadvantaged rural users.

Should the rural user be given “full opportunity and facilities as full Ghanaians” to register hence different timelines for the sake of equity?  Certainly so. Should the rural user be punished, denied social and economic inclusion in telecommunication service provision just because a few privileged urban users think crime is being committed against them? Certainly not.

WHAT IS UNIVERSAL SERVICE

 

There is no one model for the concept of “Universal Service” since it may mean different things to different countries depending on the socio-economic development of the country and very contextual in approach. Even within a country it may mean differently to every region depending on the context and level of deployment and diffusion of telecommunication. In South Africa for example the spirit of the concept was to narrow the gap between the provision of telecommunication service between racial groups after apartheid which was skewed to the disadvantage of the black South African.

The rationale for this is that telecommunication is seen as an indispensable tool essential for full social and economic inclusion and whether you are poor, live in a rural area, physically challenged, rich, live in an urban area or physically unchallenged there should be equity for all.

Telecommunication in the social economic development of any country is so important that the concept of Universal Service is never left to chance but enshrined in law though the underlying objective may be different. Examples of other countries that have it enshrined in law are:
                            United Kingdom : Through The Telecommunications Act of 1984
                            America : Through The Telecommunications Act of 1996
                            India: Through the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of India 2002
                            Bulgaria :  Through The Telecommunications Act  1998
                            South Africa : Through The Telecommunications Act 1996

GHANA’s ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION ACT, 2008 (ACT 775) AND CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE

The concept of universal service is mentioned under Section 23 of ECA, 2008(Act 775) and it states:

(1) The Authority shall determine the public telecommunications services in respect of which the requirement of universal service shall apply, taking into account the needs of the public, affordability of the service and advances in technologies.
(2) Universal service includes, at a minimum, a high quality public telephone service, that offers (a) a free telephone directory for subscribers of the service, (b) operator assisted information service, (c) free access to emergency number information, (d) telecommunications services, and (e) provision of services that enable persons with disability to make and receive calls.

Under Section 101(Interpretation):

"universal service" means any public electronic communications service which the Authority, in accordance with this Act, determines the requirements of universal service shall apply"

In my opinion and I hope you will agree with me that Ghana’s concept as in the law is so vague and generic making it confusing as to what it means in the Ghanaian context. What are the requirements of universal service that shall apply? and at what point will the needs of the public expected to be accounted for as stipulated in section 23(1). The “interpretation” is even more confusing. What Act 775 seems to do is to give so much power and discretion to the National Communication Authority as a regulator taking away the needed transparency needed for any objective under universal service obligations and I cannot agree more with a radio commentator who said “absolute power with absolute discretion leads to corruption and abuse”. International best practice even requires the setting up of a “Universal Service Fund” and with our vague definition of what the concept means I wonder how our fund (called GIFTEL) will be administered by way of application and accountability.
Albeit the vagueness of Act 775, Ghana’s Telecommunication Policy document dated January 10, 2005 as I have seen gives some hope to the Ghanaian context of universal service by encouraging bridging of the gap between the rural and urban telecommunication infrastructure and underpinning the fact that universal service is a fundamental human right for the Ghanaian.

The policy document states that:
“ The government recognizes that demands of equity and access to marginalized groups and communities, may in some cases be inadequately addressed by market forces, and therefore affirmative policies and initiatives shall be pursued to ensure such access”

The above statement is encouraging though I have a challenge of having a government industry policy as against a legally enshrined direction of universal service. There is really nothing wrong with having a national policy detailing our concept of universal service but in our political landscape as I see it, in my opinion, it should be enshrined in a more lasting legal framework than as defined in political “manifestos” to later metamorphous into a temporary four year national policy putting too much uncertainty into the telecommunication landscape.

Taking hope from the above government statement or should I call it national policy statement I wonder if cutting off the rural disadvantaged will be in the spirit of pursuing affirmative policies and initiatives to ensure access.

IMPACT OF BLOCKING UNREGISTERED RURAL SIM  USERS

• Infringement of Legal & Constitutional Rights

I bet from Regulator’s point of view it is the responsibility of the telecommunication service providers to make sure their SIMs are registered because it is their customers and if ordered to block the providers will lose income so it is their interest. True but very simple logic which is not in the spirit of Universal Service for all.

To me the users are first, citizens of Ghana and Universal Service as a fundamental human right as indicated in the telecommunication policy are therefore protected by the Constitution of Ghana before being customers of the providers. Off course for new SIM owners it should be the responsibility of the service providers to get them registered going forward but for those in the rural areas who acquired the SIM before the directive it is the collective responsibility of both Regulator and Service Provider to make sure they are catered for in an affirmative way. If we do not know how, that is a different issue and that is why as technocrats we are paid to solve problems but not just take what to me seems the easy and cost effective option of blocking thereby infringing on Constitutional rights of the rural folks.

• Social & Economic Exclusion of The Rural Poor

How is the old lady in the village going to talk to his son who has left for the city or abroad to put food on the table? Do we want to cut her off? What should the old lady in the village who receives money from some philanthropist in the city through mobile money do? Do we want to starve her? Even amongst the rural folks who have been communicating between themselves just to keep in touch and feel alive, do we want to deny them such basic e-socialisation.  If some of us do not get our SIM registered and cut off we will not be too much disadvantaged because we have other options of e-socialising such as skyping, twittering and face booking. What do our illiterate rural folks have?

The whole concept of SIM registration though a good thing to do which I agree we as a county need,  the underlying principle/rationale adopted for doing so to already existing users in my opinion was  as if, we are all criminals using the telecommunication networks and if we do not  register to be identified we will be cut off.  Yes, a few deviants were using the network against some “significant others” in society and now those “powerful people” are attempting to exclude the rural poor who have never been a target and will never be a target by those criminals from social and economic development. To me it is like cutting off our nose to spite our face. Who will be excluded, the relatively rich-urban telecoms customer with multiple IDs and multiple centers to register or the relatively poor-rural telecoms customer with little or no ID and short of centers to register unless she travels to the nearest town may be.


CONCLUSION

In my opinion, in the name of Universal Service and the spirit of the Constitution if it is not too late, let us give the rural folks more time to register. Even if some end up not registering and eventually are cut off in the name of national interest (the whole purpose of this registration) the perception that there was equity in the process will not be disputed.

The biometric registration time table published shows that we have the capability of giving everybody an equal opportunity to stand and be counted so the way forward to me is for the NCA to take up a mobbing up exercise and publish as done by the Electoral Commission timetable for areas and districts for registration of SIMs. This might sound expensive but off course the Universal Service Fund for which the telecommunication providers contribute to is a National Cake that should be deployed for this purpose. When we want the vote of the same rural folks we get close to them so why should we exclude them in the socio-economic development that telecommunication brings taking cognizance of the fact that there is undoubtedly a direct correlation between the availability of and access to telecommunications infrastructure and a country’s economic condition and growth which has to be balanced with national security with a lot of circumspection.