Al Mamun Harun Ur Rashid :
The International Gateway Operators Forum (IOF) has expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) for unilaterally terminating the operational agreements of several International Gateway (IGW) operators. IOF claims the cancellations were executed without due process or the opportunity for the affected parties to respond to the allegations raised.
IOF President Asif Rabbani stated in an interview with The New Nation on Monday, “BTRC cancelled the agreements without any prior notice or allowing us to present our defence, which is deeply disappointing and procedurally unfair. A show-cause notice should have been issued, allowing us to address the allegations.”
The BTRC’s decision, reportedly based on claims of irregular report submissions, has been refuted by IOF officials.
IOF Chief Operating Officer Mushfique Manzoor clarified that comprehensive traffic reports-daily and monthly, IGW-wise and IOS-wise-along with detailed financial documentation, have consistently been submitted to the Commission. “We even installed a real-time call monitoring system at BTRC headquarters at our own expense,” he said. “To date, no request from BTRC has been denied or ignored.”
Regarding BTRC’s concerns over unequal call distribution among IGWs and IOSs, IOF cited technical disruptions. “Between November 2023 and December 2024, a fire at the Khwaja Tower Point of Interconnection (POI) led to major service interruptions. Despite this, 13 IGWs and 6 IOSs continued operations, albeit under challenging conditions. Equal distribution was not technically feasible during this time, and BTRC was duly notified,” Manzoor noted. He also pointed to further disruptions during the July-August 2024 anti-quota protests, when internet shutdowns and disconnections ordered by the Bangladesh Submarine Cable Company exacerbated service irregularities.
On the matter of outstanding dues and bank guarantees, IOF stressed that all IGWs maintain bank guarantees with BTRC to cover revenue-sharing obligations. “BTRC has the authority to encash these guarantees at any time. In some cases, BTRC directed IOF to recover dues directly from revenue streams, and we complied,” Manzoor stated.
He further highlighted the forum’s positive financial track record, noting that prior to IOF’s establishment, six IGWs defaulted on a combined sum of Tk 9.21 billion between 2012 and 2014. Since IOF’s formation in 2015, the sector has contributed significantly to the national exchequer: over Tk 5,607 crore has been paid, including Tk 4,342 crore in revenue sharing, Tk 635 crore in licence fees, and Tk 630 crore in VAT and AIT.
As of August 2024, all IGWs were current on their payments to BTRC. Minor dues arose only after two IGWs had their accounts frozen by Bangladesh Bank following political transitions. These accounts have since been unfrozen, and one of the operators has applied to clear the dues, though BTRC has yet to respond.
On 3 December 2024, BTRC suspended three IGWs, citing dues and failure to maintain equitable call distribution. IOF argues that the decision was taken without specific justification per operator and without legal due process.
In response to allegations that IOF unauthorisedly amended agreements, Manzoor said, “No modifications have ever been made without prior approval from BTRC. A proposal to adjust the Revenue Sharing Partner (RSP) ratio was submitted on 26 September 2024. Although BTRC later issued a warning, IOF maintains that no changes were enacted.”
Further, on 3 December 2024, BTRC directed IOF to amend three clauses in the IGW agreement. IOF accepted one and proposed alternatives for the other two. These were submitted for approval on 30 January 2025. During a meeting on 7 February, the IOF President explained the forum’s position to the Commission. As of now, no formal response has been received.
Addressing accusations that IOF failed to curb illegal international call termination, Manzoor stated, “Combating call fraud falls under the jurisdiction of the government and law enforcement, not IOF. Nevertheless, we have supported these initiatives by funding logistics and following BTRC’s directives.”
He added that the BTRC receives 40 per cent of IGW revenues and should therefore have directly contracted and paid international technology providers for call fraud monitoring-something IOF claims it was instructed to handle on behalf of the regulator.
Concluding his remarks, Manzoor stated, “The allegations underpinning the termination are baseless and stem from misperceptions. This unilateral move by BTRC threatens to destabilise the international call termination sector-undoing nearly a decade of progress and discipline brought in since IOF’s inception.”
