GT&T – CEO’s Remarks for Press briefing on Thursday, 2nd March 2006

Introduction

GT&T is celebrating its l5 year and even though this may be a relatively short period of time in the life of an organization, one needs to evaluate the contribution made by this Compatny-80%owned by AIEN and 20% by the GoG, in the context of what it took over on 28 Jan 1991 and what it has been able to achieve in those 15 years.

Our press briefing is intended to update you and through you the public, on our performance in 2005 and what our plan of action is in 2006 as well as to give our perspectives on issues that are topical as the relate to GT?&T and the telecommunications sector.

The specific details regarding the build out of wire line and remote radio in 2005 and plans agreed upon with the PUC for 2006 will be given by Ms Pamela Briggs, Director, Customer Services and the progress made in cellular and DSL for 2005 and plans for 2006 wil1 be given by our Director of Marketing and Sales, Mr. Michael George. Before I invite them to make their presentations, I would like to put some framework and context to this briefing session.

When I was offered the opportunity in June last year to continue to contribute to the development of Guyana by taking up the appointment of CEO/GM , I was excited at the prospect of joining a Company which was at the cutting edge of technology and I relished the prospect of contributing the experience and knowledge that it has been my good fortune to accumulate in my previous career opportunities, to the pool of talent and proven expertise of the 630 members of staff comprising 99% Guyanese and 1% Caribbean and other nationals on contract to GT&T.

I knew the importance of building out the telecommunications networks in the urban, rural and hinterland areas, in order to provide:

• a vehicle for facilitating partnerships between community based economic enterprises and the more established businesses- such as in the agricultural, manufacturing, and tourism sectors;

• an instrument through which the delivery of social services could conceivably be provided ‘on line’;

• a tool to explore the possibilities of tele-medicine for remote health centres;

• a platform for packaged information and vocational training programmes relevant to the needs of the country.

In short, I visualized GT&T, not only carrying out the stated operational aspects of its mission-to rehabilitate, modernize and expand the country’s telecommunication facilities and services, but also in a very strategic way, through enlightened partnerships with the Government and its public sector, the private sector, non governmental organizations and community based organisations, being pivotal to:

the pursuit of the integrated development of Guyana;

being a catalyst for improvements in the human condition and through the evolving wire line, cellular, remote radio and satellite connectivity;

facilitating a sense of kinship and belonging that would bridge the divide between the coast and the hinterland, local Guyanese with the diaspora, while providing the telecommunications infrastructure through its networks, for the realization of those deliverables that are fundamental to Guyana’s development outcomes at the national, re and international levels.

After 275 days in my appointment, my enthusiasm has not waned, testimony to my respect for the professionalism of the staff of the company, the partnerships built with vendors, contractors (local and overseas), businesses, the interest and support of the Chairman, CEO and Board of ATN, and admittedly, in varying degrees, the support of certain private and public sector organizations, agencies and individuals.

The enthusiasm would have been more infectious if there was a more enabling environment within which the Company’s mission is being implemented and I would wish to) elaborate on a few such inhibiting factors:

The accusation that the Company is a monopoly

This fallacy is being peddled as ‘evidence’ as to why progress of Guyana in ICT has been compromised. The fact is that the Company is not a monopoly. It has a license from the GoG which gives it the exclusive right to provide local, domestic long-distance and international telephone service in Guyana. GT&T has a non-exclusive license to provide cellular radio telephone service and every one is well aware of the fact that two other licensed companies already function in Guyana. The issue of exclusive right can be resolve through negotiations and ATN and GT&T signaled our support since 2001 for the process of liberalisation of the sector. This would have included negotiations on the exclusivity provisions of GT&T’s license as stated in the Consultation Paper on Issues and Options for Reform of the Telecommunications Sector, produced under the auspices of the Office of the Prime Minister and Minister of Public Works and Communications in August 2001. The reform of the sector will entail among other things, rules being established for competition, interconnection and VoIP and developing the monitoring capacity to ensure compliance with the rules.

Five years and three consultancy reports later, the Reform process is languishing-no fault of GT&T.

In an effort to bring about a resolution of issues deriving from interpretation of the License and Agreement of 1990, a joint meeting between a GoG team and an ATN/GT&T team in 2002 held in Trinidad, had progressed to the point where the GoG should have drafted a MOU to provide a way forward in resolving issues of mutual concern. This MOU did not materialize.

The accusation that the Company is taking people’s money and providing a poor quality of service

It is assumed that this criticism relates to the GSM cellular network service since the Regulatory Authority, the PUC, has written to GT&T (and a copy of that response has been made available to you), requesting that it puts a halt to the sale of cellular services because of complaints received concerning congestion and poor quality of service. The PUC made its judgment based on anecdotal information and PUC staff’s feedback rather than on empirical data that should be objectively reviewed, in consonance with due process. The complaints of poor Quality of Service are more pronounced in the GT Mobile Serving Area, MSA, and difficulties in getting through are experienced during peak periods and mass attendance event-oriented activities, when there are specific periods of call blocking and dropped calls because of inadequate capacity a combination of reduced spectrum requiring re-engineering of our design for the GSM build out, and higher capital investment because more sites have to be established. On the spectrum issue we published a one page advertisement giving the facts of this issue. We have appealed to the PM for consideration of our request for a third of the available 900 MHz band, if only for the GT MSA, and we are yet to receive a response. In the meanwhile, we have enlisted the assistance of our contractors Nortel, and the service of a consultant, to research the effective utilization of the allotted spectrum using technique of fractional loading/frequency hopping etc at our existing GSM sites, while continuing our build out. During last week we commissioned the facility at Long Creek, and only yesterday we commissioned our upgraded GSM facilities at Linden and a new site at Ogle. We are drive testing in the GT MSA and the empirical data compiled will be used by our staff, Nortel contractors and our consultant, to redesign for the additional sites in GT which we intend to pursue vigorously during the second quarter this year. So, we have been far from slothful and especially when one considers the challenges of acquiring real estate-some see GT&T as a cash cow to be milked of millions for the 100-ft by 50-ft land required for our infrastructure, and also the difficulty of dealing with ownership issues when negotiating with NDC's, family owned plots and leases. This is compounded by the shortages of stone as we experienced in Dec 05 and the current shortages of cement, throwing time lines in jeopardy.

Bypass

GT&T also has to contend with illegal and unlicensed operators that are proliferating and despite the representations made to the regulatory (PUC) and monitoring (NFMU) agencies as well as the Ministry responsible, to sign a joint statement condemning this insidious practice, the silence has been deafening! To rub salt in the wound, there is official sanction of these illegal practices in that even State agencies are acquiring service from these illegal and unlicensed operators.

We will be entering into litigation proceedings with the perpetrators of bypass, wherever we have identified clear breaches of our exclusivity License and Agreement with the GoG.

Support for the Call Centre Investments

We have been accused of failing to support Call Centre investments because of unreliability of our Americas II fibre optic cable and the absence of redundancy if our fibre optic cable is down.

This accusation is not borne out by the facts. Call Centres were set up in Guyana before 2005; operators were attracted to English -speaking Guyana when the Americas II fibre optic cable was installed in 2000. When GO- VEST approached us in the fourth quarter of 2005 to provide services for the establishment of a Call Centre at BV, we stated up front and in a very transparent manner, that while we had capacity on the fibre optic cable, we would urge the Call Centre operator to invest in satellite redundancy using VSATs. The Call Centre operator decided that the cost was prohibitive for satellite redundancy and proceeded to commence operations in Dec 05 utilizing the capacity on our fibre optic cable. Unfortunately, in Dec 05, the Americas II cable experienced cuts in French Guyane over which we had no control in terms of speed of restoration (48 hours) and them in Feb 06 we suffered fibre cuts (20 hours) which were proven to be deliberate acts of sabotage at D’Edward village railway embankment and another cut (20 hours) through the negligence of a NDC excavator operator at Quaker’s Hall. To ensure greater reliability of our system we have invested (US) one million dollars in the installation of microwave redundancy which would be installed in April 2006.

Cumulative effect of the Accusations and Criticisms

Orchestrated attacks

When one considers the timing of the accusations of monopolistic stranglehold, poor quality of service, slothfulness in build out, failing to support call centre investments, a request to curtail sale of cellular services, the deliberate sabotage of our Americas II fibre optic cable, the display of convenient amnesia as to what the telecommunications sector comprised in 1991 and being publicly dismissive of where we are currently, including failure to acknowledge that the obstacles put in our way are contributory factors in any objective assessment of quality of service and capacity issues, then it should be very clear to any rational person, moreso a patriotic Guyanese consumer, that this seems to be an orchestrated and coordinated strategy by officials of the State, itself holders of 20% of the shares and the recipient of taxes and dividends, to bring GT&T into disrepute, cast doubts on our abilities and laudable intentions, and undermine the morale of hardworking and committed staff.

Failed Propaganda attempt

Seen in such light, the recent propaganda blitz, must be exposed for what it truly is, a failed attempt to convince Guyanese that this essentially Guyanese run Company, which has stuck to the mission through challenging and stressful times, which has contributed significantly to the national telecommunication infrastructure by investing over (US) $250 million dollars, contributing substantially to the nation’s revenues, (as reflected in the15th Anniversary Supplement carried in the three daily newspapers), which has stimulated the growth and development of businesses the length and breadth of Guyana, such as- civil engineering works contractors, transport contractors, pre-paid cards, C-Point and cellular phones vendors, as well as sponsoring or supporting education, culture and sports, other social and humanitarian activities, is somehow cast in the role of villain and publicly vilified as the reason why there is justification for another operator to be granted a license to operate cellular service.

If Guyanese are as gullible and acquiescent as to believe such propaganda, then cows will surely put on wings and fly.

Plea for Reform of the Sector and Constructive Dialogue

It is our hope that instead of wasting time and energy trying to make GT&T ‘look bad’ in order to justify what seems to have been a ‘fait accompli’ in licensing another operator, time would be better devoted to creating an environment of peace, stability, and mutual trust and confidence so that through timely reform., constructive dialogue and negotiations, we can creatively use our collective resources to truly implement an information and telecommunications strategy in keeping with the vision I articulated earlier and one which I hope is shared by all right thinking Guyanese.