No Telecom Competition Rules for 30 Years, Senate Gives IT Ministry One Month to Fix It

Thirty years. That is how long Pakistan’s telecom sector has operated without a formal set of Telecom Competition Rules, and it took a Senate committee session to force the admission into the open.

The Senate Standing Committee on Information Technology convened today to review the state of telecom regulation in Pakistan. What emerged was not a routine briefing. It was a documented account of institutional inaction stretching back three decades, playing out against the backdrop of a rapidly consolidating telecom industry where the absence of a competition framework is no longer just an administrative gap, it is an active risk.

Thirty Years Without a Framework

Senator Shahadat Awan opened the discussion with a statement that framed the entire session: Telecom Competition Rules have not been framed in Pakistan for the past thirty years. Not drafted. Not notified. Not even circulated for comment.

He noted that two major telecom companies have recently undergone a merger, a development that makes the absence of competition rules particularly consequential. In any market where consolidation is taking place, competition regulation exists to protect consumers, prevent monopolistic behaviour, and ensure that smaller players are not squeezed out. Without it, the question Senator Awan posed to the committee is entirely legitimate: if a dispute arises between companies, who is responsible for resolving it, and under what legal framework?

The answer, as the session made clear, is that no such framework currently exists.

Not Even a Draft

Senator Awan pressed the point further. He told the committee that the rules have not merely failed to be notified; they have not even reached the draft stage in any form that has been made available. The gap is not one of final approval. It is one of basic preparation.

Senator Kamran Murtaza added to the pressure, asking directly: if the rules have not been framed in thirty years, when exactly will they be? It is a question that deserves a precise answer, not a general assurance.

The Ministry and PTA Respond

The IT and Telecom Secretary told the committee that work on telecom rules has been underway for the past year and that rules related to telecom equipment have been successfully prepared and notified. It was a partial concession, acknowledging progress on one front while the larger issue of competition regulation remained unresolved.

Chairman PTA offered a more specific account. He confirmed that Telecom Competition Rules have in fact been framed but stated that the Competition Commission of Pakistan raised objections to the draft on three separate occasions. Those objections, he implied, are among the reasons the rules remain unnotified.

Senator Awan’s response to this explanation was direct. He told the committee that had the Senate not raised the matter, the IT Ministry and PTA would have remained dormant on the issue entirely. It was not a diplomatic observation; it was a formal rebuke of institutional passivity on a matter of significant regulatory importance.

“The Height of Negligence”

Senator Talha Mahmood, who had earlier in the same session raised Chitral’s internet connectivity crisis, was unsparing in his assessment. He told the committee he was astonished that rules of this nature had still not been produced, calling the situation the height of negligence.

Senator Kamran Murtaza proposed that the Ministry of Law and Justice be formally brought into the process, given the legal complexity involved in framing competition rules and the need to ensure they withstand future challenges.

One-Month Deadline Issued

Chairperson Senator Palwasha Khan concluded the discussion by issuing a formal one-month deadline to the IT Ministry to produce a draft of the Telecom Competition Rules. The directive was unambiguous: the draft must be prepared and presented to the committee within that timeframe.

It is the kind of instruction that transforms a discussion into an accountability mechanism, provided the committee follows through when the deadline arrives.

Pakistan’s telecom sector is in the middle of a significant structural shift. The recent merger of two major operators has reduced the number of competing players in the market. In such an environment, competition regulation is not a bureaucratic formality; it is the primary safeguard against pricing collusion, service degradation, and the marginalisation of consumers who have no alternative provider to turn to.

Without enforceable Competition Rules, PTA lacks a clear legal basis for intervening in anti-competitive behaviour. The Competition Commission of Pakistan has its own mandate, but telecom-specific rules are necessary to address the particular dynamics of spectrum allocation, interconnection agreements, and market dominance in the communications sector.

The three objections raised by the Competition Commission to PTA’s draft rules also warrant scrutiny. If the commission identified substantive concerns three times and those concerns were not resolved, the question is not just one of delay; it is one of whether the draft rules as written are adequate to the task they are meant to perform.