Social and Political Objectives

Regulatory activity is often associated with economic regulation, yet one of the prime motivations for establishing regulators is premised on the need for social regulation, more particularly in the era of competition where operators tend to address profit margins and reduce social obligations to burdensome and costly obligations. Social regulatory issues emerge in a variety forms, namely:

•  Consumer concerns: residential as well as business users, need to know that they are amongst others, receiving accurate bills, that they are able to make emergency calls when necessary, that they are entitled to private conversations, that they are able to access telephones from any geographic location and that they are able to exercise choice of operator and services. 
•  Quality of service:users need to know that the network and services are reliable, that the network is mainatined and upgraded to support new services, that calls between parties are continuous .
•  Diffusion of network and services:users need to know that telecommunications networks and services are geographically wide-spread and accessible to all, including those who are physically challneged.
•  Service types:Users need to know that they can access and use different services, and be informed of the cost and types of services.    
•  Repairs: Users need to know that damaged networks, faulty services and faulty disconnections will be reapired within reasonable time.  
•  Cost of services: Users need to be informed of the change in prices of existing and new services.  Users need to be informed of the costs of international, national and local services. Users need need to know what they are paying for.
• User sensitivity: Equitable treatment. Disabled people should be enabled to access services of their choice.

Consumers do not often have the information, or resources to challenge the service providers. As regulators of markets, who are more likely to have the resources (enforcement powers, lawsuit funds, access to decision-makers) regulators are required to ensure that consumers are protected and that their concerns are timeously addressed. Regulators can protect consumer interests by prescribing social obligations, by imposing price caps to control prices, establishing consumer complaint commissions, developing incentives to ensure cooperation and compliance with regulations, setting quality of service indicators and universal service targets and time frames. In the process of ensuring that operators meet social obligations, regulators are also seen as fulfilling distributive functions, such as, sharing of scarce resources and public goods.

More often, all stand to benefit from adherence to social objectives. Although they are often viewed as burdensome by operators, social obligations enhance the public image of operators and improve network externalities in the process. They enhance the image of the ministries for whom infrastructure development is high on the agenda, and they enhance the image of the regulator who is then viewed as effective and necessary.

In view  the public nature of telecommunications, regulations thereof is invariably imbued with political interests. However, different debates have emerged on the value of politics in regulation.  For instance, formalists have argued  that through separation of powers it is possible that the legislature, the administrative branch and the courts have clear distinct functions, and go as far as suggesting that the legislature makes the laws, the administrative branch executes them and the courts interpret them.  The reality of regulation illuminates a different picture. In “political choice in regulatory administration”, Hays asserts that

 “the legislature, the administrative agency, and the courts are merely different settings in which political controversy and choice are ordered. Much of the drama of our political system arises from the way in which each of these institutions remains open to making its own distinctive contribution to resolving political controversy” (Hays, 1981:125).

 Political institutions constitute the context within which regulation unfolds; the ideological and related symbolic realms define thoughts and assumptions.  Policies which guide the telecommunications sector are often formulated in a political context, in the presence of multiple interest groups (Greater detail is found in TR 509, for which you can register in the second half of the year).  Although some practitioners had attempted to promote the idea that policy-making is the exclusive function of the ministry or government , it has become evident that regulators too shape policy and the telecommunications sector in the manner in which they implement policies. By ensuring that operators meet national objectives aligned with the policies set out by governments, regulators fulfil a political function.

Politics will persist in the realm of regulatory activity because although regulation constitutes distribution by ‘experts’ as opposed to political parties, it allows for the representation of a narrow range of interests, whilst distribution through political parties allows for representation of a wider group of interests - including social groups (Hills 1991). The problem for promoters of social obligations arises when the narrow interests are limited to economic groups, at the expense of social group and related issues. It is in the regulators interest to widen participation to allow multiple players or interests to enhance political credibility of decisions.

The management of international relations constitutes another arena of political activity for regulators. Those  whose regulators whose countries are members of international instutions, such as the WTO and the ITU, need to align their policies with relevant international guidelines.  For instance, the usage of scarce resources, such as the frequency spectrum, requires coordinated inter-national allocation without which services based on wireless communication systems could collapse.