Foreword: discovered a interesting 3 part series by Dr Mohamed Awang-Lah on the issue of liberalising the telecommunications industry in Malaysia. Because I
have no life and no friends am interested in both this topic and want to maintain my Bahasa skills, I decided to take a stab at translating it.
My translations in blue, the original text belongs to Dr Mohamed Awang-Lah.
Countries have grappled how to deal with the rise of telecommunications convergence. Some (like New Zealand) have structurally seperated their former incumbent telecommunications company into retail, wholesale and infrastructure divisions. Others (like Australia) forced the incumbents to open up the last mile to the home. Still others (like Japan and Singapore) have leveraged the fact that their former stated owned incumbent monopolies are controlled by the government to build a national broadband network.
It is a rare insight into the telecommunications industry of Malaysia, with a slight hint of the decisions made up in the corridors of power. Even things like communication pits & ducts built by developers, greenfield constructions, the ownership of natural monopolies, all influence why the internet is as bad as it is in Malaysia.
The solutions are there. Australia decided to create a neutral 3rd party, NBNCo, to build the National Boardband Network. New Zealand made it a condition for Telecom NZ structurally seperate before they could participate in the UFB plan.
All this gives a glimpse into how Jaring died, death by a thousand cuts.
Pengliberalan industri telekomunikasi: Apa yang tak kena? (Bhg 1)
The liberalisation of the telecommunication industry: Issues with it (Part 1)
Source:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/mohamed-awang-lah/pengliberalan-industri-telekomunikasi-apa-yang-tak-kena-bhg-1/10206152319861914
1. Jabatan Telekom Malaysia (JTM) yang ditubuhkan pada tahun 1946, telah dikorporatkan pada tahun 1987 menjadi Syarikat Telekom Malaysia Bhd. Pada tahun 2005 jenama TM digunakan.
1) Jabatan Telekom Malaysia (JTM) [the Malaysian Telecommunications Department] was established in 1946 and corporatized in 1987 to become Syarikat Telekom Malaysia Bhd. It was rebranded as TM in 2005.
2. JTM adalah sebuah jabatan kerajaan yang mengendalikan perkhidmatan telekomunikasi berlandaskan Akta Telekomunikasi (1950) dan Akta Penyiaran (1988). Susulan kepada pengkorporatan JTM yang mengambil kira era 'convergence', dua akta baharu diwujudkan - Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia (CMA, 1998) dan Akta Suruhanjaya Komunikasi dan Multimedia Malaysia (MCMC, 1998) yang membawa kepada penubuhan SKMM - iaitu suruhanjaya pengawal-seiia industri telekomunikasi.
2) JTM was a government department which managed the provision of telecommunications under the Telecommunications Act 1950 and the Broadcast Act 1988. As the era of 'convergence' dawned, JTM was corporatized, and 2 new Acts were brought into force – the Communications & Multimedia Act (CMA 1998), and the Malaysian Communications And Multimedia Commission (MCMC 1998) which lead to the establishment of the Malaysian Communications And Multimedia Commission – a commission to regulate the telecommunications industry [in Malaysia].
3. Berasaskan CMA'98, pelesenan dibahagikan kepada tiga kegiatan utama - Network Facility Providers (NFP), Network Service Provider (NSP) dan Application Service Provider (ASP) yang berganding dengan Content Application Service Provider (CASP). Syarikat penyiaran (TV) memerlukan CASP. Perkhidmatan runcit seperti telefon, e-mel, web, dsb memerlukan ASP. Perkhidmatan berkaitan dengan penjualan lebar-jalur (bandwidth) memerlukan NSP. Perkhidmatan prasarana asas seperti menara (towers), tiang (poles), peparit (trenches), sesalur (ducts), lurang (manholes) dan spektrum radio, memerlukan NFP.
3) The CMA 1998 divided telecommunication licences into 3 main streams - Network Facility Providers (NFP), Network Service Providers (NSP) and Application Service Providers (ASP) which were joined with Content Application Service Providers (CASP). Retail services such as telephones, email, web access etc, require a ASP. Bandwith resale services require a NSP. Core infrastructure services such as towers, poles, trenches, ducts, manhole access & radio spectrum, require a NFP.
4. Untuk menyediakan perkhidmatan runcit kepada pengguna, ASP/CASP memerlukan NSP dan seterusnya NSP memerlukan NFP. Di sinilah berlakunya pertembungan pertama. Penyedia perkhidmatan runcit (ASP) yang besar juga beroperasi sebagai NSP dan NFP sendiri. Mereka biasanya ingin berdikari kerana jika bergantung kepada NSP atau NFP lain, mereka juga terpaksa bersaing dengan pesaing yang dikendalikan oleh NSP/NFP berkenaan. Namun demikian hanya NFP besar sahaja yang mempunyai prasarana seperti sesalur untuk gentian optik. Jadi ASP kecil terpaksa bergantung kepada dan bersaing dengan NFP besar. Contoh: peruncit A bergantung kepada lebar-jalur yang dibekalkan oleh B dan pada masa yang sama terpaksa bersaing dengan B untuk mencari pelanggan runcit. Sudah tentu B mempunyai kelebihan untuk bersaing dengan A. Di sinilah wujudnya persekitaran persaingan yang kurang sihat.
4) To provide retail services to end user consumers, ASP/CASP’s require a NSP, and axiomatically NSP’s require a NFP. And this is where the first issue arises. The biggest ASP [in Malaysia; no prizes for guessing who] also operate as its own NSP and NFP. Independent [ASP] providers rely on other NSP or NFP’s for access, directly in competition with other NSP or NFP’s. However only incumbent NFP’s have the Core Infrastructure such as fibre optic [networks]. Thus smaller ASP players are forced to simultaneously both rely and compete with incumbent NFP’s. Example: retail provider A relies on bandwidth purchased from B, but at the same time competes with B for customers in the retail space. Obviously B will have the upper hand against A in competing for customers. And this is where an less than ideal/healthy competition environment begins.
5. Apa yang sepatutnya berlaku? Kalau syarikat sudah ada NFP, mereka tidak sepatutnya diberi NSP atau ASP. Setiap syarikat hanya boleh memegang satu jenis lesen sahaja.
5) Ideally, NFP licence holders should not be given NSP or ASP licences. One licence type per company.
6. Bolehkah perkara ini berlaku? Boleh sekiranya bermula semasa JTM dikorporatkan. Tetapi semua prasarana dan perkhidmatan runcit diserahkan kepada TM sebelum CMA dilaksanakan. Jadi TM mempunyai ketiga-tiga NFP, NSP dan ASP.
6) Can this be done? There was a window of opportunity when JTM was corporatized. However all infrastructure and retail services were handed to TM before the CMA was established. Thus TM is a NFP, NSP and ASP simultaneously.
7. Bolehkah TM dipecahkan? Amat sukar kerana pengaruh TM yang amat kuat. Lagi pun kerajaan ada kepentingan dalam TM. Di sini berlaku pertembungan kedua. Tujuan CMA diwujudkan ialah untuk meliberalkan atau membebaskan (liberalise) industri telekomunikasi - membolehkan banyak syarikat bersaing dengan sihat. Tetapi adalah tidak mungkin syarikat swasta bersaing secara adil dengan syarikat kerajaan - terutama dalam perkhidmatan talian tetap, di mana semua prasarana JTM telah diserahkan kepada TM. Perlu disebut behawa semua perkhidmatan wayarles (misalnya telefon bimbit) juga memerlukan talian tetap.
7) Can TM be broken up? That would be very difficult as TM as a strong incumbent position. The Government of Malaysia also has a [financial] interest in TM. This is where the 2nd issue arises. The CMA was established with the intention to liberalise the telecommunications industry – allowing new entrants to enter the market, forming a healthy competition. However is it a level playing field if a private company has to compete with a government owned enterprise – especially in the provision of fixed line services, where the JTM infrastructure was handed to TM. It is pertinent to note that all wireless services (such as mobile phones) also require fixed line [for backhaul].
7.1 Nota Selingan 1: Dalam perkhidmatan telefon bimbit, kita dapati TM menghadapi masalah untuk bersaing kerana ia adalah perkhidmatan baharu yang tidak pernah dikendalikan oleh JTM sebelumnya. Pada pandangan saya, TM membuat kesilapan besar bila melupuskan Celcom dari pegangannya.
7.1) Side note 1: In the mobile phone service space, TM has trouble competing with other players in the market as it is a new service which was never managed by its JTM predecessor. In my opinion, TM made a huge mistake when it demerged Celcom from its parent control.
8. Apa yang sepatutnya berlaku? Aset JTM yang tecacak atas atau tertanam dalam tanah (seperti tiang, sesalur, lurang) sepatutnya diserahkan kepada syarikat lain yang bebas dan beroperasi secara tak-ambil-untung (not-for-profit) bagi menyediakan prasarana kepada semua penyedia perkhidmatan runcit, termasuk TM. Syarikat ini bertanggung-jawab menguruskan kawasan tanah yang direzabkan sebagai 'right-of-way' (RoW). Ruang RoW adalah terhad - biasanya ditepi jalan. Tidak mungkin semua NFP (yang bilangannya sudah melebihi 100) menggalikan peparit untuk memasang sesalur gentian optik masing-masing dalam kawasan RoW yang sempit. RoW perlu dikongsi oleh semua penyedia perkhidmatan.
8) Ideally what should have happened? JTM’s assets, be they above or below ground (such as poles, wires, manholes) should have been split off from JTM and handed over to another independent entity operating as a not-for-profit to provide infrastructure to all retail service providers, including TM. The entity would be responsible for managing the ‘right-of-way’ (RoW) of infrastructure. The physical space for RoW is limited – generally by the road side. It is not possible for all NFP licence holders (who number in the 100’s) to dig their own trenches and lay their own ducts to run fibre optic cables in the limited space available. The limited RoW should be shared by all service providers.
8.1 Nota Selingan 2: Saya berpendapat perkhidmatan yang bercorak monopoli (seperti bekalan elektrik, bekalan air, pembentungan, prasarana telekomunikasi) tidak seharusnya diswastakan. Semua perkhidmatan ini memerlukan kawasan tanah untuk bertapak. Individu tidak seharusnya mengambil untung dari kegiatan seperti ini. Perkhidmatan monopoli perlu dikandalikan secara not-for-profit, tetapi bukan dengan kerugian. Beberapa entiti boleh ditubuhkan mengikut kawasan atau negeri.
8.1) Side note 2: In my opinion, Natural Monopolies (such as electricity, water, sewage providers, telecommunication infrastructure) should not be privatised. These services require physical space on the ground. Individuals should not be profiting from core services. The provision of services by natural monopolies should be run as a not-for-profit, but not at a loss. Local entities can be established either at the local or state level.
9. Sudahkah terlambat untuk mengubah? Mungkin boleh kalau ada political will ! Lebih kurang 80% isi rumah belum lagi mempunyai jalur-lebar berasaskan gentian optik. Banyak rumah baharu masih dibina. Jadi perubahan masih diperlukan.
9) Is it too late to change? It still could be possible if there is political will! Less than 80% of households in Malaysia so not have fibre optic infrastructure to the home. There are no lack of new housing being constructed. So change is still needed.
9.1. Nota selingan 3: Saya difahamkan bahawa cadangan perubahan ini pernah dibincangkan secara serius pada peringkat atasan. Saya agak pengaruh pihak tertentu yang amat kuat menghalang perubahan itu dari berlaku. Penyelesaian yang dipesetujui hanyalah dari segi pengasingan akaun antara perkhidmatan wholesale dan retail dalam TM. Bagi saya ini tidak berkesan sama sekali. Pengasingan perlu berlaku pada peringkat pemegang saham, lembaga pengarah, pengurusan dan tempat beroperasi.
9.1) Side note 3: I understand that such reform was discussed at serious length by high ranking members of the government. I also understand that certain parties exerted heavy influence in blocking the implementation of such reform. The agreed middle ground was the account separation between the wholesale and retail divisions within TM. In my opinion this does not have an materal impact. The structural separation needs to happen at the shareholders, board of directors, management and location level.
10. Jadi, dalam kesungguhan melaksanakan dasar penswastaan dan liberalisasi, nampaknya kita tersilap langkah. Ia memberi kesan besar kepada perkhidmatan telekomunikasi termasuk jalur-lebar. Ia juga telah menjejaskan daya saing negara. Perkhidmatan jalur-lebar kita agak ketinggalan.
10) It is clear that in the process of privatisation and liberalisation [of the telecommunications sector], mis-steps were made. This has had a huge impact on the provision of telecommunication services, including broadband. This leads to a reduction in the competitiveness of the country. Our broadband service leaves a lot to be desired.
(bersambung)
(To be continued)
Pengliberalan Industri Telekomunikasi: Apa yang tak kena? (Bhg 2)
The liberalisation of the telecommunication industry: Issues with it (Part 2)
Source:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/mohamed-awang-lah/pengliberalan-industri-telekomunikasi-apa-yang-tak-kena-bhg-2/10206157969123142
11. Adalah menjadi tanggung-jawab pemaju perumahan untuk menyediakan sesalur (ducts) telekomunikasi di kawasan perumahan yang dibangunkannya. Sesalur ini biasanya menyambungkan lurang (manhole) (di tepi jalan berdekatan) dengan bilik MDF bagi bangunan multi-tenant atau ke setiap rumah yang berasingan (teres atau banglo). Kadang-kadang tiang diguna untuk mengganti sesalur. Kabel (wayar telefon atau gentian optik) biasanya disediakan oleh pembekal perkhidmatan (telco) yang mempunyai lesen NFP.
11) It is the responsibility of housing developers to provide telecommunication ducts in the developing of housing estates. These ducts are connected to manholes (by the nearest roadside) to a MDF for multi-tenant buildings, or to individual houses (terrace of bangalow housing). Street poles are sometimes used in lieu of underground ducts. Cables (be they copper lines or fibre optic) are usually laid by telco’s who have a NFP licence.
12. Setelah mendapat sijil CCC (Certificate of Completion and Compliance), sesalur berkenaan biasanya diserahkan kepada telco yang menyediakan perkhidmatan telefon atau jalur-lebar (biasanya TM kerana TM adalah sebuah syarikat yang besar dan dimiliki oleh kerajaan; malah banyak pemaju dan syarikat perunding masih beranggapan mereka perlu menyerahkan prasarana telekomunikasi kepada TM - satu tanggapan yang salah). Selepas itu, adalah amat sukar bagi telco lain (yang bersaing) untuk menyediakan perkhidmatan di kawasan yang sama. Ini adalah adat persaingan yang kurang sihat.
12) After obtaining the Certificate of Completion and Compliance, the connection work is handed over to the telco which provides phone or broadband services (usually TM because TM is the gorilla incumbent and owned by the government; many developers and [construction] consultants have the mistaken assumption that they need to obtain their telecommunications infrastructure from TM). After this is it hard for competing telco’s to provide telecommunication services in the same area. This is an unhealthy competitive environment.
13. Saya anggap ini adalah pertembungan ketiga. Siapa yang sepatutnya menyelenggara sesalur berkenaan? Ini bukan kerja pemaju perumahan. Ia juga bukan kerja persatuan penduduk kerana ia memerlukan kepakaran tertentu. Penyelenggaraan adalah tugas sepanjang hayat. Kalau hak penyelenggaraan diberi kepada salah satu telco, tidak ada lagi keterbukaan perkhidmatan (equal access). Penghuni rumah tidak lagi ada pilihan untuk memilih telco lain. Keadaan monopoli biasanya wujud, walaupun bukan berasaskan undang-undang tertentu - hanya satu "adat"!
13) I see this as the 3rd issue. Who is the responsible party to maintain the [telecommunication] infrastructure? Certainly not the housing developer. Not the residents association, as it requires specialised skillsets. The maintenance [of telecommunications infrastructure] is a lifetime job. If the maintenance rights are assigned to a particular telco, there will be no equal access [to other telco’s]. Occupants will not have choice of telco. A monopolistic situation is the usual outcome, even if it is based on “convention” and not on specific laws!
13.1 Nota Selingan 4: Saya diminta memasang gentian optik ke sebuah bangunan oleh telco A. Bila ditanya pemilik bangunan, mereka menyatakan sesalur telah diserahkan kepada telco B. Mereka perlu mendapat kebenaran B untuk kami memasang kabel gentian optik menggunakan sesalur berkenaan. Jika B melihat A sebagai ancaman, kebenaran tidak diberi dengan pelbagai alasan. Jadi saya terpaksa menggali peparit baru untuk memasang sesalur berasingan. Kosnya tentu bertambah.
13.1) Side note 4: I was asked to install fibre optic to a building by telco A. When queries were made to the building owners, the owners stated that the telecommunication ducts were handed over to telco B. The owners had to obtain telco B’s permission to install fibre optic cables using the building ducts. If telco B felt that telco A was a threat to their business, permission was refused under the pretext of many excuses. I had to dig and lay new ducts to run the separate fibre optic connection. This of course just added to the cost.
13.2 Nota Selingan 5: Terdapat juga syarikat pemaju yang besar melantik anak syarikatnya sendiri untuk mengendalikan prasarana di samping menyediakan perkhidmatan runcit secara eksklusif. Ini juga merugikan pengguna kerana mereka kehilangan kuasa memilih.
13.1) Side note 5: There are also big name developers who “appoint” their own subsidiaries to manage the telecommunications infrastructure and having an exclusive monopoly on providing retail options. This disadvantages the consumer as they lose the ability to choose.
14. Saya menganggap ini adalah satu kegagalan sistem pengawal-seliaan (regulation). Ia berkait rapat dengan pertembungan pertama yang saya sebut dalam perenggan 4 sebelum ini. Pihak regulator biasanya menyerahkan hal ini kepada 'commercial negotiation' antara telco yang berminat untuk menyediakan perkhidmatan di kawasan yang sama. Perundingan saksama tidak mungkin berlaku bila telco kecil cuba berunding dengan telco besar. Yang kecil biasanya kena buli. Sikap lepas tangan pihak regulator tidak membantu keadaan.
14) This to me is a failure of the regulatory system. It goes back to the 1st issue that I mentioned in point 4 above. The regulator generally leaves the 'commercial negotiation' for providing services in a particular area between the telco’s alone. A fair negotiation cannot happen when the smaller telco’s have to negotiate with the bigger incumbent telco’s. Inevitably the smaller telco’s will be bullied. The hands-off approach of the regulator does not help matters.
15. Apa yang patut berlaku? Perlu wujud pihak ketiga yang mengendalikan prasarana asas seperti sesalur dan tiang dalam kawasan perumahan (dan juga di jalan raya). Entiti ini adalah neutral dan tidak terlibat dengan perkhidmatan runcit. Ia bebas menyewakan prasarana asas kepada mana-mana pembekal perkhidmatan dengan syarat dan kadar bayaran yang sama. Dengan cara ini lebih daripada satu telco runcit boleh memberi perkhidmatan kepada pengguna. Pengguna bebas memilih telco yang dikehendakinya. Pembekal perkhidmatan telefon, TV, jalur-lebar mungkin berbeza walaupun untuk premises yang sama. Dengan adanya persaingan, kualiti perkhidmatan akan meningkat.
15) What should be done? There should be a 3rd party to manage core infrastructure such as ducts and poles in residential estates (and on the main roads). This entity is neutral and does not provide retail services. It is free to rent the core infrastructure to any retail suppliers with the same terms and costs. With this multiple retail service providers can provide service to consumers. The consumer is free to choose the telco of their choice. The supplier of telephony, TV, broadband services may be different even to the same premises. With competition, there will be an improvement in the quality of service.
Pengliberalan industri telekomunikasi: Apa yang tak kena? (Bhg 3)
The liberalisation of the telecommunication industry: Issues with it (Part 3)
Source:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/mohamed-awang-lah/pengliberalan-industri-telekomunikasi-apa-yang-tak-kena-bhg-3/10206180261720443
16. TNB (Tenaga Nasional Berhad) mempunyai rangkaian gentian optik yang panjang dan meluas untuk kegunaannya sendiri. Hampir semua pencawang utama TNB di Semenanjung mempunyai gentian optik. Namun, hak pengendalian sebahagian rangkaian ini diserahkan kepada syarikat usahasama antara TNB dengan TM (Telekom Malaysia) yang dinamakan Fibercomm Network (M) Sdn Bhd (“FC”). TM mempunyai pegangan majoriti. FC mempunyai rangkaian gentian optik sepanjang 100,000km.
16) TNB (Tenaga Nasional Berhad) has its own fibre optic network spanning Peninsular Malaysia for its exclusive use. Virtually all main TNB substations are linked with fibre optic. However, the responsibility for managing this fibre optic network rests with a joint TNB-TM venture named Fibercomm Network (M) Sdn Bhd (“FC”). TM holds a majority stake in this company. FC owns and manages a fibre optic network spanning 100,000KM.
17. KTM (Keretapi Tanah Melayu) mempunyai landasan keretapi yang panjang dari Perlis ke Johor Bahru dan bercabang ke Kota Bharu. KTM mempunyai sebuah syarikat usaha sama dengan TM untuk memasang dan menguruskan rangkaian gentian optik melalui tanah rezab jalan keretapi - Fiberail Sdn Bhd (“FR”). TM mempunyai pegangan majoriti. FR mempunyai rangkaian gentian optik sepanjang 4,800km.
17) KTM (Keretapi Tanah Melayu) has a rail network stretching from Perlis to Johor Bahru with a spur to Kota Bharu. KTM also has a joint venture with TM to install and manage a fibre optic network running alongside the train tracks of KTM’s rail network - Fiberail Sdn Bhd (“FR”). TM holds a majority stake in this company. FR owns and manages a fibre optic network spanning 4800KM.
18. Sebelum ini wujud juga Petrofibre Network (M) Sdn Bhd (“PF”) yang dimiliki oleh Petronas. Syarikat ini memasang gentian optik menggunakan tanah rezab untuk saluran gas di Semenanjung Malaysia. PF yang ditubuhkan pada tahun 1996 telah diambil alih oleh FR pada tahun 2006.
18) In the past there was also a company called Petrofibre Network (M) Sdn Bhd (“PF”) owned by Petronas. It laid fibre optic cables along the gas pipelines in Peninsular Malaysia. PF was established in 1996 and was taken over by FR in 2006.
19. Melalui FC dan FR (termasuk PF), TM mempunyai rangkaian gentian optik yang meluas di seluruh semenanjung. Ini tidak termasuk rangkaiannya sendiri menggunakan sesalur baharu dan sesalur lama yang diwarisi daripada JTM.
19) Through FC and FR (including PF), TM has a wide and comprehensive fibre optic network across Peninsular Malaysia. This does not include its own network over its old and new trunk network inherited from JTM.
20. Sejak TM mengambil alih FC dan FR, penyewaan dark fibre tidak lagi dibenarkan. [Dark fibre adalah gentian optik yang tidak mempunyai sinar cahaya laser]. Hanya lebar-jalur (bandwidth) sahaja yang disewakan kepada pihak lain. Sekiranya pihak lain dibenarkan menyewa dark fibre, mereka akan menghasilkan lebar-jalurnya sendiri dan boleh bersaing dengan TM. Inilah yang sangat dibimbangi oleh TM.
20) After the acquisition of FC and FR by TM, the option of leasing Dark Fibre was withdrawn. (Dark Fibre refers to unlit fibre optic cables) It was only possible to lease bandwidth. If any other party was allowed to lease Dark Fibre, they could create their own (broadband) network to compete with TM. This was what TM was afraid of.
21. Dalam keadaan seperti di atas, adakah wujud persekitaran persaingan yang saksama? Bagi saya tidak. Mungkin anda mempunyai pandangan sendiri.
21) In such a situation, can there be a level playing field? For me it is not possible. Others may hold different views.
22. Apa yang sepatutnya berlaku? Pihak ketiga perlu dilantik untuk mengendalikan aset telekomunikasi yang dimiliki oleh syarikat berkait dengan kerajaan - TNB, KTM, Petronas. Mungkin ia boleh dinamakan - Syarikat Prasarana Telekomunikasi Negara (SPTN). Rangkaian gentian optik (dark fibre) yang dikendalikan SPTN boleh disewakan kepada mana-mana syarikat pengendali telekomunikasi berlesen NFP dengan syarat dan harga yang sama. SPTN juga perlu mengendalikan rangkaian melalui jalan raya, lebuhraya, LRT/MRT, dan sebagainya. Walau bagaimana pun, SPTN tidak boleh beroperasi secara runcit. Ia juga perlu dikendalikan secara not-for-profit.
22) Ideally what should happen? A 3rd party should be appointed to manage the telecommunication assets owned by Government Linked Corporations - TNB, KTM, Petronas. It could be called - Syarikat Prasarana Telekomunikasi Negara (SPTN). [National Telecommunication Infrastructure Company] The network of fibre optic cables ([including] Dark Fibre) will be managed by SPTN, and leased to any telecommunications company holding a NFP with the same terms and pricing structure. SPTN could also manage the [telecommunication] networks linking roads, highways, public transport, and the such. However, SPTN will not provide retail services. It would also need to be run/managed as a not-for-profit.
23. Bolehkah ini dilakukan? Tentu boleh jika ada political will.
23) Could this be achieved? Of course if there was political will.
