Guyana Telephone & Telegraph Company Limited - a slumbering giant
Business Page
By Christopher Ram
Stabroek News
May 30, 2004
Introduction
An organisation's culture is derived as much from its mission and philosophy as from the key personalities who shaped the organisation in its formative years. Those persons familiar with the psychology of organisations would know that culture changes people - not the other way. The GT&T Agreement stands as a monument to the negotiating skills of its founders, Mr. Cornelius Prior and Mr. Jeff Prosser although it reflects in equal measure the poor skills and other considerations of those who represented Guyana in those negotiations. The website of GT&T tells us that the total assets of Guyana Telecommunications Corporation (GTC) had been independently valued at US$20M.by the Merchant Bankers, S.G. Warburg, who used an entirely inappropriate asset basis for this valuation.
Yet, ATN and GT&T are obviously comfortable with Warburg's approach and final value since it makes the price paid (US$16.5M) for the 80% stake in GTC look reasonable and proportional. Indeed the price paid suggests that ATN paid more than the company was worth. Had S.G. Warburg, which itself benefited substantially from its relationship with the PNC administration, used a more appropriate basis such as earnings or market comparable, the price paid by ATN would reflect a massive discount since any such basis would have arrived at a price considerably in excess of US$20M. Many would argue that the countrywide monopoly alone would have been worth considerably more than US$20M, particularly having regard to its duration (20/40 years). Add to this all the attendant goodies and the situation would have been vastly different.
GT&T has proved over the years that it was not only capable of negotiating a bargain loaded in its favour but that it will go all out to protect its turf, sustain its advantages and maximise its returns. In the process it takes on in the most aggressive manner the host Government; an international body, the IADB, competitors large and small, the latest being Cel*Star; consumers and their representatives; regulators (the PUC); the tax authorities; the courts and critics - while its dislike of former Chairmen of the PUC, Messrs. Menon and Tyndall was hardly a secret. Its unwillingness to provide any information that would contribute to a review that might cast it in an unflattering light is therefore not surprising.
In part one last week, we had noted that even the most casual review of the notes to the company's financial statements and the documents filed by the parent company ATN to the US Securities and Exchange Commission suggests that a knowledge of law is required for a proper appreciation of the company's financial statements.
Legal skills
Six of the twenty-one pages of the company's 2002 audited financial statements deal directly or indirectly with legal matters and challenges, some of which are unresolved years after they began. As we turn our attention to some of those issues we will notice that GT&T and its parent are not organisations that hesitate to use the full process of the legal system, conscious that its incumbency is helped by the slow and weak performance of the regulator and the court system, nor does it hesitate to challenge even the smallest entity it perceives as posing a threat.
The case of I-Net, a small internet service provider established in 1999 provides some troubling lessons. With very limited resources, I-net and the Guyana Consumers Association filed a suit in early 2000 against the Attorney General of Guyana and GT&T but they were clearly outgunned against the might of GT&T and its impressive battery of lawyers. The action sought, among other things, to establish that the Civil Law of Guyana prohibits what is referred to as GT&T's monopoly. It was particularly unfortunate that this case was never resolved as the Judge struck down I-net's motion due to the late arrival of counsel, a decision which many observers felt was particularly harsh if not unjustified, and deprived the country and consumers of an opportunity to resolve the legality of the monopoly. While a small issue, it is worth noting that it took several months and the intervention of the PUC before GT&T made two lines available to I-Net, much less than the ten applied for and the three directed by the PUC.
Ramon Gaskin and the monopoly
It was left to the small but courageous and influential voice of Raymond Gaskin to take up the monopoly issue and in July 2002 he brought an action against the Government asking the court to declare that the monopoly right conferred by the agreement is unconstitutional. GT&T applied for and was granted permission to be joined as a party "and is strenuously defending the matter." Yet, on such a fundamental issue, the High Court is taking its precious time.
But this is not the first time that the monopoly issue has been raised and frustrated. An attempt by the PUC in July 1998 to hold a public hearing into the validity of the grant of monopoly rights to any owner or provider of services in the public utility sector was stymied by GT&T. How can the court system function - or not function - in a manner that is so contrary to the public interest?
GT&T does not flex its legal muscle only at the PUC or competitors. It did not hesitate to bring suit in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. against the Inter-American Development Bank ("IADB"), among others, to halt a proposed loan to the Government as part of the liberalisation of the sector. On March 7, 2003, the case by GT&T was thrown out by the US court on the grounds that the Company lacked standing. Interestingly, GT&T did not appeal the decision, an approach very dissimilar to how it acts in Guyana.
The courts
There are two issues which the Court of Appeal is still to address and which have significant implications for the consumers. Both are appeals by GT&T against orders by the PUC. The first is against a December 21, 2001 PUC order on rate increases while the other is against an order that GT&T increase lines and add a number of features to its telephone services. That order required GT&T to have 102,126 lines by the end of 2000. Three years later, the total number of lines is only 92,683 lines - a deficit of 9,443 lines.
And then there is the action by the company asking the court to set aside certain provisions of the Act dealing with 'compulsory contributions by Public Utilities to the annual expenses to (sic) the Commission' on the grounds that the provisions are discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. It is now two years since arguments ended but still no decision by the Court. Meanwhile, the PUC without the contribution of this utility is severely weakened, practically silenced and hopelessly ineffective.
The ineffective PUC
Since 1995, the PUC has had pending a proceeding with regard to the failure by GT&T to complete the expansion and service improvement plan by February 1995. Incredibly, the PUC, according to the GT&T financial statements, last held hearings on this matter almost six years ago! Given the seriousness of this matter, the PUC's failure to address it cannot be excused, explained or defended.
The PUC in 1997 ordered the company to cease paying advisory fees and to recover from ATN $3.6Bln of such fees. Following a challenge by GT&T, the High Court ordered new hearings but GT&T appealed that decision, seeking to strike down the instructions for new hearings on the grounds that the PUC has no jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal decided to remit the issue of jurisdiction to the PUC which has not scheduled any hearing for at least two years - a matter that is beyond comprehension. Meanwhile, GT&T continues to pay annually advisory fees amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars to ATN.
And taxation too
But it is not only in telephone matters that GT&T is resolute in defending its interest and maximising its returns. Its financial statements indicate that it is contesting income tax assessments of approximately $3Bn. for the years 1991 - 2000 based on the disallowance as a deduction for income tax purposes of five-sixths of the advisory fees. The tax laws limit head office expenses to '1% of sales or gross income' - hence the disallowance of 5/6. According to the company's accounts, 'The deductibility of these advisory fees was upheld for one of these years by a decision of the High Court in August 1995'. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue has filed a High Court Writ seeking an order setting aside that decision on the grounds that he did not have a proper hearing. Not surprisingly, GT&T is contesting that Writ and once again, the whole matter is tied up in the court system.
The tax laws provide that no appeal can be made to the courts unless the whole amount of the tax in dispute has been paid to the Commissioner. There is nothing in the financial statements to indicate that the company made such a deposit.
GT&T also successfully applied to the Guyana High Court to stay an audit undertaken by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and from enforcing assessments for the 'years 1991 through 1996'stemming from that audit. According to GT&T's 2002 financial statements, 'Negotiations have begun with the Revenue Authorities (sic) on the possible settlement of the issues involved but no substantial progress was made over 2002' Why the Revenue Authority would want to have negotiations with GT&T on this matter defies understanding and is without any known precedent, but there is even more confusion when one reads the parent company's financial statements which disclose that 'The issues involved in these matters are part of the ongoing negotiations …. between GT&T and the Government of Guyana and its tax representatives'.
This column has the greatest respect for the courts of the land but finds it impossible to understand that our Court would create a precedent of putting a stay on an audit by the tax authorities. Whether other taxpayers in this country can afford to follow suit is another matter but there is a serious danger that the country's tax base would be dangerously eroded if powerful entities could have their way with the tax system. Is it any wonder that employed persons now pay more taxes than companies? The ordinary citizen has every reason for wondering how the law operates.
Conclusion
This company by its action says that it not only wants to make the rules as it did with a most lopsided agreement but would bring its full resources - ironically funded by its consumers - to ensure that where the rules are not in its favour, it will do everything to frustrate them. It is not abashed in being seen as litigious, taking on even those who are prepared to concede that its role since 1991 has not been without value. It has made the PUC practically redundant and fully exploits the weaknesses in the legal system. Regrettably its action, the weak regulatory functions and a court system that is creaking have served to discourage those like Eileen Cox, Joe Tyndall, Nigel Hughes and Mrs. Sheila Holder who have championed the cause of consumers over the years. GT&T has proved that Colin Powell's doctrine of overwhelming, sustained force works.
Introduction
Today we return to our series on Guyana Telephone & Telegraph Company Limited (GT&T), the country's monopoly telephone service provider. Because the company refused Business Page's request for a copy of the company's 2003 annual report, this review is limited to GT&T's financial statements for the year 2002 which were audited by Deloitte & Touche, and the Form 10-K Report filed by GT&T's parent company ATN with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. It is one of the ironies of the GT&T tale that the government as minority shareholder, and the PUC as the utilities regulator, can find far more information on GT&T by going to the parent's filing in the US than from a review of the company's financial statements.
The 2002 financial statements assure the reader that the accounts comply with International Accounting Standards. The absence of such an assertion in the auditors' report (which is a requirement in auditing standards and common among the other major public accountants in Guyana) does not exonerate the auditors from several cases of non-compliance which any serious review of those statements reveals. These include such basic issues as the date the financial statements were approved for issue, and the number of employees, movement in fixed assets and better disclosure of accounting policies on key areas of the financial statements such as turnover. The approval is particularly important where the board includes minority shareholder representatives who may not always be satisfied with the decisions of the majority and find the consideration of the financial statements an opportune time to express their discomfort.
Interestingly, while the company has chosen the US dollar as its functional currency, no US Dollars financial statements are presented. International Accounting Standards do allow for a choice of functional currency in defined circumstances, but it may be argued that for statutory tax and reporting purposes, such statements are not acceptable since they may be contrary to the laws of Guyana. The justification it uses is that "the majority of the company's transactions are denominated in US dollars," a case which could apply to a number of companies in the export business such as Guysuco.
In addition to the requirements of the Companies Act and by extension International Financial Reporting Standards, GT&T has reporting obligations under both the Public Utilities Commission Act and the GT&T Licence. Section 48 of the PUC Act provides that "the Commission may by rules prescribe the forms of all books... accurately and faithfully in accordance with internationally accepted accounting principles in Guyana..."
And Section 20 (2) of the licence requires the company to maintain separate accounting for "the activities of the Supplemental Services Business, the Systems Business and the Apparatus Supply Business," while Condition 20.2 (c) of the GT&T Licence requires the licensee to "procure in respect of each of those accounting statements prepared in respect of a complete financial year of the Licensee a report by the Licensee's Auditor stating whether in his opinion that statement is adequate for the purposes of this condition" (ie relating to separate accounting).
20.2 (d) requires the licensee to "deliver to the Director a copy of each of the accounting statements and of the reports relating thereto... as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event not later than six months after the end of the period to which they relate."
I have asked the PUC in writing whether such statements are in fact submitted to them and whether they receive any opinion from the auditors in respect of 20 (2). I am awaiting their response. There is however nothing in the financial statements or the report of the auditors to indicate compliance with any orders by the PUC or under licence. In other words, the audited financial statements do not provide the information required by the licence.
One of the principal defects of the financial statements is the incredible and unacceptable absence of information on related parties, including their names and the volume of transactions either as an amount or as an appropriate proportion of outstanding items. By now, readers of this column would be aware of the importance of adequate disclosure of transactions with related parties - a condition that assumes great importance in regulated utilities. The financial statements of the parent company show several companies that would meet the definition of related parties including ATN, the parent company, Call Home Telecom, Llc, a wholly owned subsidiary of ATN established in 2002 in the US Virgin Islands to provide United States distribution and termination of international outbound collect calls from Guyana, and ATC another wholly owned subsidiary of ATN which operates the Call Centre at Beterverwagting utilising GT&T's circuits in the Americas II fibre optic under-sea cable. The financial statements of GT&T do not identify any income to GT&T for the use of its facilities which could mean that GT&T's consumers are bearing costs for which there is no matching revenue.
In fact, ATN and all its mini-subsidiaries contribute very little to the group and in its statement to SEC, ATN admits that "substantially all of the company's consolidated revenues and operating income" are derived from GT&T operations. This makes it all the more reasonable to understand why the PUC would have ruled since January 1997 that the company cease paying advisory fees to ATN and seek to recover over $3.5B paid to ATN between 1991 and 1996. Not only has the company managed to stall this matter in the court, but it has also continued to pay such fees at the rate of over $3/4B per year without any action on the part of the PUC since 2001.
2002 performance
Total operating revenue in 2002 fell by $2.3B or 15.4% to $12.7B with the largest decline taking place in international long distance revenue ($4.2 B) or 36 per cent. Local network services produced revenue of almost five billion dollars - an increase of $1.8B or 59% over the preceding year. The reduction in the settlement rate for US - Guyana traffic from 85 US cents per minute to 23 US cents per minute resulted in a substantially reduced profit margin on inbound traffic from the United States but an increased margin on outbound traffic to the United States. Another reason for the decline was the virtual elimination of the highly profitable audio-text service which was widely criticised as immoral and improper and which had generated unexpected windfall profits to GT&T and ATN.
On the other hand, revenue from local network services increased by 59% from $3.1B to $4.9B, mainly as a result of greater usage by consumers and an 8% increase in fixed subscriber access lines. However, it was in the provision of mobile cellular telephone service that GT&T saw its largest volume growth as the number of cellular subscribers increased from 39,206 at January 1, 2002 to 79,915 by the end of the year - an increase of over 100 per cent. The financial statements do not contain relevant information to permit the measurement of the profitability of this service but it is clear that the cellular service is a major focus of the company as another forty thousand subscribers were added in 2003. By way of contrast, fixed subscriber lines in 2003 increased by a mere 7.5 per cent.
Total expenses fell from $9.8B in 2001 to $8.1B, in 2002 as international long-distance expenses fell by 78% and customer operations expenses by 25 per cent. Corporate operations costs increased from $947M in 2001 to $1.1B in 2002 while the advisory fee which is calculated as a percentage of revenue reflected the reduction in revenue.
After Corporation Tax of $2.1B (or almost 20% down from 2001) net income is $2.2B compared with $2.8 B in 2001. Even after this reduction, the corporation tax paid by GT&T was almost twice the combined tax paid in 2002 by the five top private sector companies in Guyana - Banks DIH Limited, DDL, Demerara Tobacco Company Limited, GBTI and NBIC!
The balance sheet
Current assets, ie those assets held in cash or expected to convert into cash within twelve months of the balance sheet date amounted to $6.2B of which cash represents $2.6B, though there is no indication of the country and currency in which the balances are held. Current liabilities which are those liabilities due for payment within twelve months amount to $3B, meaning that the company's liquidity position is extremely healthy.
There is no indication of what other long-term assets of $341M represents, a figure that is not only significant in itself but also having regard to the reduction from $1.1B at the beginning of the year. An almost similar shortcoming is in respect of Accrued Liabilities where accrued interest of $710,000 is identified while Other is stated at $916M. Net fixed assets are shown at approximately G$17 B or US$85M while the total shareholders equity is $18 B.
Dividends
Dividends declared and paid in 2001 amounted to $2.8 B representing 100% of the net income for that year while dividends for 2002 of $3.2 B represent 148% of 2002 net income.
Mr Joseph Tyndall, telecommunications expert, in 2001 had cautioned the government against euphoria over the company's first payment of dividends after ten years of highly profitable operations. He attributed the change in policy to a strategy to weaken public reaction to the expected rate increase following the cessation of its 'audio-text binge' and the government's announced intention to bring to an end the monopoly.
As Mr Tyndall has pointed out, GT&T has employed other means of paying itself - including the 6% advisory fees which the PUC had ordered stopped. GT&T has refused to provide information to refute publicly expressed concerns that this is an effective giveaway since AT&T pays all the costs involved in the provision of services. Other means used by ATN to extract cash from GT&T were the charging of prohibitive interest on loans and GT&T's audio- text operations.
Conclusion
The accounts of GT&T are not the best for presentation and disclosure, nor do they facilitate analysis. Business Page considers that they do not meet the basic requirements of the PUC Act and the Licence nor do they conform with International Financial Reporting Standards. While Deloitte & Touche audits substantially all of the revenue and assets of the group, ATN is audited by PriceWaterhouseCoopers which replaced the disgraced Arthur Andersen as the parent company's auditors in 2002, and one can only speculate on the degree of co-operation between the two firms to ensure that the financial statements of GT&T are complete in every respect.
These statements clearly require a thorough examination by the PUC and possibly a hearing on it so that any deficiencies are identified and remedied.
Introduction
Today's column concludes the series on GT&T which appeared in the Sunday Stabroek of May 23 and 30 and June 20, 2004. GT&T is the story and legacy of the privatization programme of the PNCR; the inconsistency of its successor both as a shareholder and guardian of the national interest; a company that has used its might and influence to pursue the sole objective of profit maximisation; a court system whose defects have been seriously exposed such as its failure to deliver its ruling on the issue (of the regulator's payment to the PUC), concluded over two years ago; and a public that has become worn down by its failure to bring about any significant change in the conduct of the company after a decade of sustained efforts.
It should not be a surprise that the company did nothing to facilitate this series, even after requesting and being provided with a number of written questions which it then proceeded to ignore. Coming on the heels of similar refusal of Banks DIH and DDL, two other corporate giants, this only serves to confirm the backward culture of accountability and governance pervasive in our private sector. What was more surprising, shocking and unbelievable was the conduct of the Public Utilities Commission in its refusal to provide any information in clear breach of its obligation under the PUC Act. It is in this atmosphere that Guyana's most successful company with a monopoly that extends for close to thirty years, operates.
A gem of innocence or artful dodger?
On June 14, I asked the PUC in writing whether: (1) It had made any rules under section 48 of the PUC Act regarding the 'the forms of all books, form of accounts, papers and other records required to be kept by every public utility and requiring every public utility to 'keep and render its books, accounts, papers and other records accurately and faithfully in accordance with internationally accepted accounting principles in Guyana in the form and manner so prescribed by the Commission, and (to) comply with all directions of the Commission relating to such books, accounts, papers and other records;
(2) the company is in compliance with Condition 20.2 (c) of its Licence requiring it to "procure in respect of each of those accounting statements prepared in respect of a complete financial year of the Licensee a report by the Licensee's Auditor stating whether in his opinion that statement is adequate for the purposes of this condition (i.e. relating to separate accounting); and
(3) whether the PUC was in receipt of a copy of each of the accounting statements and of the reports relating thereto ......required under 20.2 (d) of the Licence to be delivered 'to the Director as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event not later than six months after the end of the period to which they relate'
The response from the PUC was a gem of innocence or clever evasiveness. Here is what they said: 'The Commission relies on the integrity of the Auditing profession and those of its members who certify the audited financial statements of the utilities. To date we have not had cause to question or doubt any audited financial statements submitted by the utilities.' Perhaps because of this misplaced confidence the Commission states categorically that it 'has not undertaken any accounting audit of any public utility'. Has the PUC been reading the press, including exhaustive comments and criticisms by persons knowledgeable with regulatory and accounting matters? Does the PUC have any idea about the objectives of a statutory audit and its limitations for regulatory purposes? Or that following the demise of Enron and Arthur Andersen, surveys in the USA show that the accounting profession is now ranked just ahead of used-car salesmen and the legal profession when it comes to matters of integrity and professionalism.
And as far as Section 20 of the Licence is concerned, all the PUC was prepared to say was 'The licence was granted under the provisions of the Telecommunications Act. Our understanding of section 20 is that the Director of Telecommunication is the appropriate authority to deal with the accounting statements of the utility.' Story done! In other words, do not ask us - go to the non-existent Director of Telecommunica-tion. Does the Commission not have the presence of mind, courage or authority to ask for a copy? Has it advised the Prime Minister who is responsible for the Telecommunications Act that this key requirement of the Licence has been rendered inoperable because of governmental inaction?
But there is even more absurdity from the PUC. BP of May 20 had referred to the temporary closure to the public of the Deeds Registry and the consequent inaccessibility to the records lodged there. On June 3, I wrote the PUC asking to be advised among other things of the deadline for GT&T's filing of its 2003 return and for a copy thereof. This particular request was repeated in June 14 and June 22 in which I also specifically quoted Section 83 (5) of the PUC Act giving the public the right of access to information subject to the requirement to protect confidentiality which surely does not apply to annual returns. The PUC's answer on June 28: 'We are not aware that the office of the Registrar of Companies is temporarily closed to the public' Again, story done. In other words forget section 83 and right of access.
Changing roles
In Part 2 of this series, I had expressed surprise that the court would have prevented the tax authorities from undertaking a revenue audit. I later learnt that the court was persuaded that the audit might have been compromised and politically motivated by statements made by then Minister of Trade Shree Chand. While this puts the decision in a more reasonable light, it raises the question as to why the Revenue Authority (RA) has not moved to have a (non-political) revenue audit done since that ruling was handed down. It is frightening if the RA's failure to act reflects any loss of confidence in its own mandate and capacity, its ability to operate independently and within the law or its ability to win the legal arguments in the court.
GT&T is fully aware of and exploits the weaknesses in the regulatory mechanisms, including the Registrar of Companies, and the company's commanding role in the society. It understands the psychology of power and the voice of money which it uses to considerable effect for itself. It knows that its advertising dollar sustains many sections of the media. However disappointing this may be to any purist concerned about the public interest, this is how businesses operate and why effective regulation is so vital. In a recent memorandum to the PUC, MP Sheila Holder argued that the PUC ought to remove Utility Providers' legal expenses as a cost to be borne by rate-payers or consumers on the grounds that utilities hire the gamut of prominent high-priced lawyers with the objective of locking in their services, paying huge legal bills often to frustrate PUC regulatory actions and enhance monopoly powers without any benefit to rate-payers.
Strategic Relationships
The accounts show that the company is proposing to pay dividends of $3.4Bn, representing 106% of the year's after-tax income of which the government gets $675Mn., which no doubt it badly needs. With only ATN-appointed directors on the Board, the minority shareholders (the Government) have no say in the decision on dividends or anything else including the insistence by the company to continue paying unjustifiable management fees in 2003 amounting to $851Mn. before dividends. Is the non-appointment of its two nominees by the Government mere inertia or a vote of confidence in the way ATN runs the company?
Gaskin for director
Since the series began, there has been no indication of any progress on the negotiations between the Government and the company with a view to bringing the monopoly to an end and it must be hard for consumers to accept that for the next thirty years the status quo will remain. There is a body of opinion and indeed a legal challenge by a consumer that holds that the GT&T Agreement violates the law as being 'utterly void'. Is this an oversimplification and wishful thinking on the part of consumer bodies and competitors and can there still be a technological or commercial case for a monopoly in this age of openness and competition?
It is clear that many of the institutions charged with the responsibility of protecting the consumer from any excesses by GT&T are highly inadequate. The courts have to recognise the importance of the public interest and can hardly justify the inordinate delay to rule on the annual fee payable to the PUC. Its failure to conclude on certain other critical matters referred to in this series may be costing the consumer enormous sums and the country significant opportunities for development. Is Guyana an exception to the universal principle that competition is good for consumers and the economy?
From all appearances and his public pronouncements, President Jagdeo is not happy with the existing arrangements and the continued exploitation by the company of its monopoly situation. But the President needs to match his dissatisfaction with effective action. For a start he should immediately appoint a Director of Telecommunications or find legal ways to ensure that the functions are carried out. In more than half-seriousness I have suggested that Ramon Gaskin be appointed to GT&T's Board. Will GT&T then tell the Government that it does not accept their nomination?
The PUC
As this column has shown the PUC has become increasingly toothless and timid, qualities that guarantee failure. It needs to robustly enforce its mandate and immediately begin action to put an end to the monopoly which GT&T has effectively awarded itself in the area of cellular telephone service which its Licence surely does not give it (editor's note: it would seem that a settlement with Cel*Star Guyana is imminent). Even if GT&T is permitted to offer such a service, it should be done through a separate subsidiary on conditions that are available to any similar competitor.
It needs to relieve itself of the misconception about the accounting profession and to understand the significant differences between a statutory and a regulatory audit and to commission a regulator's independent audit of the financial operations of the company. It must be aware by now that the audited financial statements presented by the company fall short of acceptable accounting standards and the requirements of the licence and the PUC Act. It should not leave the responsibility of being the watchdog of GT&T on any consumers' group or any individuals all of whom have even less resources.
Conclusion
The comments received from ordinary members of the public on this series have more than compensated for the challenge involved in trying to obtain information which should be available as a matter of right. GT&T is an opportunity for the country to move into the 21st century. It has to begin with equitable application of the law to the small entrepreneur as well as the corporate behemoth. The Government must do more to protect the public interest including its 20% stake in the company. What does sovereignty mean if we are reluctant to enforce the country's laws?