More questions than answers in Iraq

It was clear from discussions at the Iraq telecoms conference in London last month that security is still a paramount issue for both existing and prospective investors in the country's fledgling telecoms sector. However, another form of instability was of immediate concern; namely the lack of a clear liberalisation policy. The Risk Advisory Group's Lucy Norton comments.

  • E-Mail
By  Lucy Norton Published  October 9, 2006

|~||~||~|The lack of clear policy in Iraq's telecoms sector is apparent. Nine months since the Coalition Provisional Authority's licences to Iraqna, MTC Atheer and AsiaCell officially expired the government has yet to agree a strategy for liberalising the sector. The Ministry of Communications (MoC) has officially announced that four licences will be available. However, there is confusion surrounding whether the ministry will be a player or a regulator in the new market; the former currently appears most likely. There would also appear to be disagreement over where the powers of the National Communication and Media Commission (NCMC) end and the ministry's begin. In the meantime Korek Telecom and Sanatel's networks in Kurdish Iraq continue to develop, apparently regardless of central policy developments. In the absence of clear decisions regarding how many licences to award and by what means, the existing operators have found it difficult to invest in their networks under temporary licences. The most recent extension, for three months until December 2006, came last month and provided little room for large-scale capital investment. There is also no doubt that the persistent and increasing levels of violence in Iraq have served to restrict investment in the country's telecoms sector to date. The instability has slowed the rollout and investment rates of the current operators. In the case of the mobile players, progress has been hampered by restricted access to facilities caused by fierce fighting. Facilities, especially generators, have to be constantly guarded to counter theft attempts. And, most gravely, insurgent groups have directly targeted staff, kidnapping and threatening personnel for either political or financial gain. Negotiating these challenges has cost operators time and money, to the detriment of capital investment in Iraq. And while it would appear from the growth of mobile subscribers that the market is receiving substantial investment at least in this area — cellular penetration is estimated to be in the region of 25% — comparing capital spending across markets tells a slightly different story. Take as an illustrative example Orascom Telecom's spending in Algeria compared with its commitments in Iraq. In the first two years of operation, Iraqna committed US$214 million in capital investment. This figure came in US$9 million under the amount spent by Djezzy just in its second year of operation, 2003, when in spent US$223 million. By 2005, Djezzy's annual capital spending had climbed to US$457 million. In the first six months of 2006, Iraqna had committed US$63 million. The lack of investment in the country's fixed sector is clearer. Security concerns have made the provision of public services other than telecoms, such as electricity and water, a government priority. As a result, fixed market indicators in Iraq remain low by regional and global standards. Fixed line penetration is currently less than 5%. Meanwhile, the number of internet users is estimated to be no more than 250,000. However, more importantly to the development of the entire infrastructure market and the subsequent service provisioning, Iraq still lacks backbone connectivity. This is slowly being addressed by the state-owned operator Iraq Telecommunications and Postal Commission (ITPC) and Nortel Networks. A comprehensive fibre-optic backbone network rollout is planned up to the end of 2007. However, progress is slow and mobile operators, especially those with substantial infrastructure some distance from Baghdad, are increasingly frustrated by the lack of supporting networks. Without this infrastructure, they must invest in their own wireless infrastructure to provide inter-city connectivity. ||**||

Add a Comment

Your display name This field is mandatory

Your e-mail address This field is mandatory (Your e-mail address won't be published)

Security code