Comments on: “Corruption in USF”

By: Parvez Iftikhar

Parvez Iftikhar — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:50:11 +0000

I am extremely sorry for the inconvenience. But it took me a long time and even then one could not dig out why does it happen at all (same mail 4 times)? Anyway, I hope it will not happen again.

By: http://satellitedirecthonestreview.blogspot.com/

http://satellitedirecthonestreview.blogspot.com/ — Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:13:47 +0000

After I initially left a comment I seem to have clicked on the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and from now
on each time a comment is added I recieve 4 emails with the same comment.
There has to be a way you are able to remove me from that service?

Thanks!

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 04:26:58 +0000

Much appreciated for the information and share!

By: Aslam

Aslam — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 02:50:06 +0000

One correction Parvez,

PPRA Rule 40 prohibits “negotiations” with bidders, not price matching per se. Price matching may or may not qualify to be a “negotiation”. I agree with you that the process you are mentioning does not qualify to be “negotiation” as there is no give and take and USFco does not have any discretion in the process.

Just thought to correct the misconception.

By: Alisia

Alisia — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:46:35 +0000

Where exactly is the facebook like link ?

By: Parvez Iftikhar

Parvez Iftikhar — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:18:47 +0000

Thank you very much for the encouraging words Salman. You may have a point regarding PTCL. But trust me with the level of hesitant participation by operators in bidding in USF areas, without PTCL it would’ve been even more difficult.

By: Parvez Iftikhar

Parvez Iftikhar — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:11:53 +0000

There are couple of other comments to respond to.

We abide by the law in toto. Contracts only to the lowest bidders. Broadband bidding is handled somewhat differently but keeping it fully transparent, giving the lowest bidder his full rights and not letting anyone have any discretion to decide who is good and who is not.

Finally PTCL: Well, unlike others, PTCL is 3-in-1 operator. No other operator provides Telephony, Optic Fiber, Broadband AND Telecenters with that reach in remote areas! On top of that they bid every time – again unlike others, who like to be choosey. That’s why they win more contracts – but always at lowest prices. Yes, their customer service could be better, but technically they are not bad!

By: Parvez Iftikhar

Parvez Iftikhar — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:06:08 +0000

It’s true PPRA forbids ‘Price Matching’. But this is something different. To explain: USF is ‘Technology Neutral’ but Broadband is delivered using various technologies (DSL, HFC, FTTx, WiMax, EVO, etc.). So while preparing Broadband bidding model, it was feared that if, for instance, a DSL operator won the bid, he would deploy Broadband in only those areas where copper cables exist.
After extensive consultations it was decided that technologies other than the lowest bidder’s, should also be permitted to play their role in this nation building task. This led to Multiple Winners concept – to cover areas which the lowest bidder alone would not be able to.
Four issues were specifically addressed while going for Multiple Winners:
1. Bidders must know in advance that there would be multiple winners. So even maximum number of winners was fixed (Five or 2/3rd of total, whichever is less, Para 48.4 RFA Broadband FTR-1/2008). In fact the whole scheme was explained well in advance in the RFA.
2. There must be absolutely no negotiations except voluntary matching of winning bid, while ensuring that the lowest gets it’s share.
3. USFCo or CEO must not have any discretion to grant or refuse any favor to anyone. In fact USF should not even be able to decide whom to allow price matching. Only the lower 2/3rd bidders may!
4. Since bidders would be able to win without being lowest, there must be strong incentive to quote low. So if a bidder is among the higher 1/3rd he gets thrown out.
This type of price matching is the most transparent way of finding multiple winners. Remember when two Mobile Cellular licenses were auctioned, the second bidder was required to match winning bidder. Even in WLL auction, PTCL was offered to match the winning price (this model was supported by World Bank). The rationale of PPRA Rule 40 is to ensure that there are no corrupt practices in procurement. Every care was taken that USF’s broadband model does not go against that rationale.

By: Tariq Shaikh

Tariq Shaikh — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 07:00:31 +0000

It is refreshing to see the CEO of a public sector company in Pakistan voluntarily offer transparency to their procuremnt processes and allow a debate at a public forum.

Such a step is 64 years past due for a country with the dubious honor of being amongst the most corrupt countries in the world. Even if one other government entity follows in the steps of USF this year, it will be a giant step in reversing the perpetual decline that we have witnessed over the past 3 generations.

By: Parvez Iftikhar

Parvez Iftikhar — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:34:15 +0000

Ali, I notice that now I have even more things to respond to! But again today there’s something that is making me rush. I’ll definitely do it tomorrow. Dont worry, I wont leave it unanswered!