On the status of telecommunications in Azerbaijan

***

- Abdul bey, tell me, please as telecommunication worker and expert, what is the status of Azerbaijani telecommunications today?

- In the Soviet Union, the Seventh of May was annually marked as the Day of Telecommunication Workers (though the point at issue was the Day of Radio in honor of inventor Alexander Popov in 1895). In independent Azerbaijan, the Sixth of December 1881 is the Day of Telecommunication Workers, i. e. 5 years after invention of telephone in the United States in 1876 when "Bering & Cº" under "Comradeship of Nobel brothers oil production" in Baku brought into operation the first telephone line. Guided by this circumstance, a decree of the President of the Azerbaijani dated December 12, 2006 proclaimed the Sixth of December as professional holiday of telecommunication workers of the country.

Taking the opportunity, I cordially congratulate all the telecommunication workers of Azerbaijan!

However, to all probability, the beginning of the telecommunications development (including radio, telegraph, telephone, television, Internet) in Azerbaijan is the year 1868 (telegraphing start) where, according to strategic considerations of the tsarist government, the city of Tiflis was connected with two Azerbaijani cities - Baku via Gyandja (Yelizavetpol) using Morse system. With that end in view, an underwater a 3-core telegraph cable was laid in 1879 between Baku and Krasnovodsk (Turkmenbashi).

- Apparently, the year 2018 could be marked as 150-anniversary of the Azerbaijani communication!

- As for the status of communication sector in Azerbaijan, it should be noted that autumn 2015 developments and 2-year trial proceedings in respect of 10 senior officials of the Ministry of Communication clearly demonstrated that it is impossible to run enterprises of the Ministry of Communication without professionals, continuity and a concept of their development (adopted by Milli Majlis).

Account has to be taken of the fact that the communication, like the transport, plays a strategic role in safeguarding the country"s statehood (like national security and defense). Figuratively, it is the nervous system of the state, especially today when the digitization of communication sector has neared its completion (except for 20% occupied Karabakh lands), and Azerbaijan is plainly visible against the background of the world communication infrastructure.

In this context, the new Ministry of Transport, Communication and High Technologies (MTCHT) has to solve urgent challenges, including the inventory of existing means, examination, technical audit and compatibility of all applicable technical d4cisions of the new branch; development of sectoral standards and certification of implantable services; elaboration of technological projecting standards, etc. The principal philosophy of telecommunications is its equal access for all subscribers.

It should be added that citizens of the country regardless of their age and sex, place of residence and a distance from the capital, line of work and profession are in need of telecommunications in keeping with a slogan of communication sector consumers "whenever and wherever you are".

-It appears that there is a certain progress in the development of country"s telecommunications?

-Yes, of course. But at what costs and how much has the Ministry spent on the project over 25 years?

First, tenders have been invited since 1993 to introduce tens of digital switching systems (DSS) though it"d be technically reasonable to select just one system: DMS-100, System-X, System-12, DAEWOO, Alcatel and NGN; for rural networks: DRX-4, Quantum, Karel, etc. The millions of dollars above unmask mercantile interests in the communication sector of the sector (new tender - new system - new shapka).

Second, the same is true of ICT Project from 2003 - present.

Third, operating network of the new generation - NGN (supposed amount of the project is 1 bln manats; NGN embraces the whole country, so it remains unclear what happens next if one more tender replaces NGN?

Fourth, "Azerkosmos" comes expensive, nearly the same if not more.

In all probability, the money is more than some CIS countries" budget. How much is it?

However, a level of the development of various branches is not appreciated by the purchase of ready-made technologies (three times as much) but by the fact that the country is capable of producing new technologies. That"s why the development of some economic branches of Azerbaijan is too slow and too expensive. It has to be kept in mind that the development of any branch is dependent, first of all, upon competence of personnel of sectoral institutions (designing, scientific-research and training).

To remedy the situation, it is essential to attract high-quality telecommunication workers to the MTCHT apparatus who must be a cut above ordinary communication workers at country"s enterprises. Otherwise, a new MTCHT team (like the one barred in 2016) would be unaware of what is going on behind them.

The time is ripe to provide the communication sector of the country with international operators and producers failing which the situation around Bakteleqraf and "AzEuroTel" would repeat. We need involvement of the newest technologies to avoid using mechanical fetchers or consumers. It is intolerable to derive profits only; it is expedient to think of new jobs; of generation of scientific potential in communication sector on the model of the two neighboring Transcaucasian republics (they have training, scientific-research and design communication institutions).

Availability of sectoral institutions or, at least, three in one (for example, under the University of Transport and Communication of Azerbaijan) would help us train specialists in "digital technology" capable of getting us out of the impasse in the sector. Highly skilled specialists plus their scientific potential are a basis to start developing the communication sector of Azerbaijan.

Obviously, the use of high technologies is not our credit (we do not create them, we are mere consumers of these technologies) but a financial interest of foreign producers seeking to derive maximum benefits from their designs in the developing countries like Azerbaijan and thus keep our country in technological dependence for long years.

- Why are market economy advantages inactive in Azerbaijan?

- I disagree; the market economy has made positive contribution to some branches of the country. At the same, you are right, since our technogenic communication sector with its much value and succession being laid on cadres, has been given under complete control (since 2004) of apology-for marketers and operators (I mean 2015 developments in the system of the Ministry of Communications first ever in nearly 150-year history of telecommunications of Azerbaijan).

A new motto of communication sector says "Internet is Viagra for big business".

However, a principle of "cross subsidizing" in communication sector for the last 25 years for local (urban and rural) at the expense of long-distance communication resulted in parasitic smugness of MTCHT (successor to the Ministry of Communication). That"s why the rural communication is 4 times worse than that of Baku, the fact that appreciably decreases a level of telephone communication and Internet among half of country"s population. It is essential to opportunely pay for telecommunication services together with substitution of subscriber system of payment on the basis of reciprocal payment as is the case in all European countries.

A question arises: why is our country deficient in cheap interurban, international and Internet services like in Belarus with its territory 2,4 times more than Azerbaijan?

Account has to be taken of the fact that according to expert estimation, a market price of European communication operators is 50% specified by principles of communication regulation which excludes discrimination of privately operating communication operators (like historical injustice in respect of AzEuroTel).

- But what about the privatization and who will manage the telecommunications of Azerbaijan?

- Yes, it is a knotty question. There is need in alternative and competition in telecommunications, their feasibility study, transparent value appraisal of privatization objects (started March 29, 2001) with due regard for interests of millions communication consumers and mass media active involvement in the process.

Prior to the well-known Ministry of Communication disgraceful developments (in 2015) and shameful cleansing of heads of communication subdivisions (before autumn 2015), rumors were afloat that bosses of country"s telecommunications are well-known (even in mobile communication). For this reason, legal proceedings over managers of the Ministry of Communication that lasted for two years (2016-2017) were received by some experts as carve-up of the already divided world. Collapse of the one ruling group is a pretext to start sharing posts and spheres of influence among other groups.

It wouldn"t be surprising if tomorrow the whole telecommunications of the country will be reigned by someone"s "chrisom child", though from alternativeness and competition standpoint, three or four mobile operators would be much better than two operators (if two operators are not in single hand)!

It is worth pointing out that there is need in transparency of privatization algorithm in communication:

- Open decision of the country"s government on beginning and completion of privatization in the communication sector;
- Sectoral privatization commissions acting independently, not at bidding from above;
- Open tender, including participation of foreign investors ...

We need to observe a mere succession: availability of independent regulator of communication sector (non-governmental) together with the real liberalization and demonopolization, and finally the privatization.

Note that a Presidential decree of March 29, 2001provides for the privatization in communication sector.

Why are we unable to complete evaluation MTCHT enterprises over 17 years? In 15 years we are unexpectedly told that "no privatization of state operators of Azerbaijan is on the agenda."

- One would like to know who is upper than President?

- Believe me, serious problems like those in autumn 2015 cannot be solved by a new team of the MTCHT on the basis of outdated thinking in the country, so it is necessary to take measures and remove possible failures with long-haul communication (interurban and international) something like Bakteleqraf and AzЕuroTel.

For example, Bakteleqraf lost not only its new specialized monolith multistoried bulk (built in 1982, area 11, 000 sq m, Zarifa Aliyeva str. 41 which could function 200 years more) but well-established network infrastructure, and just 20 out of 300 personnel remained..

It should be admitted that if the situation lasts in the same muddle-headed manner for long (as was the case with AzЕuroTel), the local communication (urban and rural) is sure to be ruined, as a consequence the collapse of the entire communication sector of Azerbaijan.

For this reason, availability of independent out-of-MTCHT regulator is a guarantor of transparency in sectoral interdependence and mutual payments. The latter conceals the dark side of things - yet-uncalculated profits of Azerbaijan which remain inaccessible since autumn 2015.

It cannot be tolerated that a new ruling structure gets down to resolving the privatization in its own manner (in its own or boss" interests.

Widely spread in CIS countries is a view that "telecommunication is a natural monopoly of the state" and that state is solely responsible for its operation. In the meanwhile, it was Margaret Thatcher who in the 1980s changed this backward philosophy.

The essential point to remember is that the West builds democracy on the basis of alternativeness and competition. In the meantime, telecommunication workers are deprived of high wages and granted with sorry spectacles in the form of "Ы Operation" like developing spaces of interurban public call offices, post-offices and even communications centers, to say nothing of branches, Soyuzpechat newsstands, etc.

A question arises: how far is previous privatization work in the country fair and won"t they be re-privatized?

- Be so kind as to inform us about real level of telecommunications development?

- Let"s begin with the mentioned ICT. Thus, "ICT Project" started on February 17, 2003 but failed to complete over 15 years. Note that Estonia (participant of Skype development) performed the ICT program "Tiger"s jump" in 2005, and Skype is currently used by the civilized world, free of charge and state control like our ASAN with an army of state officials. It must be said that the very concept of "electronic government provides for receipt of documents and references from enterprises and organizations of the country without officials" participation!

Further, a level of communication sector development is specified on the recommendation of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) not by a number of mobile telephones in the country but by the density of fixed telephone sets (the cheapest telephone and Internet communication for ordinary subscribers) which is apparent from the Statistical Collection of Regional Union Community issued by the Community"s executive committee. The Collection is issued in Russian and English on paper and electronic media while a source of information for the Collection is official data obtained from 11 communication administrations of CIS countries of which Azerbaijan is a full-fledged member since December 17, 1991.

There is a precise European saying "If you want to know your history, study the history of your neighbors." From statistical point of view, this means the following "If you want to know your statistics, study the statistics of your neighbors". It seems abnormal that Azerbaijan has always been ranked seventh as CIS member leaving behind just four countries of the Central Asia: Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (despite massive expenditures in the communication sector of Azerbaijan). Above us are six CIS countries: Belarus, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Armenia.

(Table from (http://www.rcc.org.ru))

Table of fixed telephone sets per 100 residents as of 2015 (p.35)

- Tell me, please, what was the reaction of the new Ministry of Transport, Communications and High Technologies to your opinions and proposals as telecommunication expert?

- In the Soviet Union the authorities appropriately reacted to any publications while in our time the situation is different. Starting from 1992 - present I made about 130 contributions; in 2016 I published 15 articles in ЭХО newspaper and in 2018 - 14 articles in Turan. However, those "above" are not interested in expert"s views.

True, I should be thankful for small mercies (I"m not a politician) thank Allah, following my annual scientific probation in England, 1981-1982 I managed to realize 80% of my plans as UN expert in three countries worldwide (Afghanistan, Libya and Pakistan). Next came Baku in three projects [EU and TASIS Project - TNAZ 9601; ICT Project of Azerbaijan - Project-AZE/01/003; and Project DO with Indiana University, USA - Project -AZ-01 - grant N S-ECAAS-03-R-219 (CS)] in1998 -2005.

Once upon a time thus I spoke "I wouldn"t" want that years later our generation of telecommunication workers and scientists of independent Azerbaijan were charged with cowardice and inability to oppose communication sector absurdities!"

- You are said to respond in your own way to renaming the communication sector into the Ministry of Transport, Communication and High Technologies. What do you say to that?

- The question is whether "high technologies" is needed to manage the transport and communication sector or it is talked about an address "cadre technology" for somebody else?

The thing is that "height" of technologies used is accounted for by extent of man"s involvement in the process, so the lesser his involvement, the "higher" is technology used (as is the case with "electronic government").

Given the above, a definition "high technologies" may surely be added to other branches of the country. A question arises: is not "high technologies" used in other branches of Azerbaijan? For example, the Ministries of Public Health, Education, Defense... and High Technologies? It should be added that high technologies in themselves do not secure the development of democracy and transparency in the country.

To all appearance, creation of the database on any person in terms of "authoritarian regime" endangers immunity of private life and human rights especially in the course of elections, referendums, struggle against dissenters in mass media, i.e. total shadowing after citizens.

The main thing is to avoid conversing the branch into polygon of "paper projects". Obviously, it is essential to draw up a national long-term concept of transport and communication development but who will be responsible for world tendencies to march in step with technological novelties, especially as there are not sectoral institutions of transport and communication (training, scientific-research and designing) capable of dealing with issues quoted above, for instance, in oil sector.

Our authorities even failed to follow a Presidential decree on the establishment of the ICT University in Azerbaijan.

- What steps are to be taken in the long view to support the new, unified transport, communications and high technologies structure in Azerbaijan?

- The steps aimed at developing the new branch are in keeping with the algorithm as follows:

1. Technological unity of telecommunications based on the unified transport and communication sector to ensure transparency, effectiveness and sustainable development of the country;

2. Management of the unified transport and communication sector by non-governmental regulator to ensure transparency and alternativeness for the new branch;

3. Foundation of communication networks on country"s territory by any physical and legal entities of Azerbaijan for alternativeness and competition;

4. Improvement of the quality of the last mil (the weakest link in country"s telecommunications) in regions to enhance reliability and fail-free of communication in regions;

5. Elimination of notorious "paper projects".

Account has to be taken of the fact that it"d be wrong to present experts reporting on sectoral news via mass media as "anti-patriots" and "oppositionists". The point is that the sectoral analysis has no relation to policy but presents an opinion of alternatively thinking specialists. As distinct from mass media journalists, experts reveal problems in the sector and concurrently suggest their own view on the issue to thus help out of the difficulty.

As you know, in the former times the cadres were appreciated, managers and professionals trained in line with an axiom "cadres are all-important", and corruption was declared a deadly war. Suffice it to look at how many corruptionists are amerced in China every year? To all appearance, we have no will to fight corruption properly: until senior officials guilty of autumn 2015 developments are punished, impunity is reigning on the agenda.