AFC fading into insignificance

FACE it politicians are just money makers, in this game to  get rich quick with less than a nod for you. 

Take the AFC for example, a Party that so badly wants to establish itself as the WPA of the 21st Century and one that wants to fight against the PPP for the good of the people.

Well screw that, the AFC has faded into the wood work of greedy and the need for publicity, Guyana could never be another Suriname or Trinidad where politicians came to realize the dire straits citizens were in and acted. NO, its all about EGOs and who will work with whom. 

PNC has fallen to pieces, the PPP will triumph and the AFC will establish itself as another long serving Main Opposition Party with Old Granny Sheila wishing to direct their 'coalition' policies. Well, AFC you prove to be nothing but a parade of people seeking you next pay pockets and as we sometimes close SHAME

Shiela Holder - Telecoms owner

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.