Sometime ago Shiela Holder called on the Government to take action on the GT&T's monopoly. Here is a parliamentarian who is protecting her own interest.
Like Clinton who said the act is not really the act....Shiela is saying that her family business is the selling of data and voice - but that it is not telecommunications. Furthermore Shiela is saying that when there is no monopoly then there is no need for telecommuncations regulation.
Therefore when the GT&T's monopoly ends in 2010, there will be no need for PUC as far as telecoms is concerned. No wonder Digicel takes GT&T to court! No wonder GT&T wants to get rid of it quicker than a hotplate! No wonder I-net is agitating in parliament to break the monopoly. Watch out Guyana. The days for wild-west telecomms is coming!
Any comments on this Prem?
Here is what Sheila wrote in 2004 in defence of her family's business.
Had the PUC Chairman respected the quasi-judicial role of the PUC in being the facilitator and an honest broker in balancing the scales between the interest of the utility and the rights of the consumer, he would not have made the improper reference to i-Net Communications Inc. in which my husband is an investor and the CEO.
He further compounded the faux pas by erroneously stating that i-Net is a telecommunications company, which the PUC has not gotten around to regulating. Surely the Chairman should know that i-Net Communications Inc. is a Guyanese Company offering competitive computer, broadband and internet services (there are many other companies offering such services in Guyana) and as such does not qualify to be regulated, since in a market economy, only monopolies need to be regulated.