The Hon. (Mrs.) Hasara Liyanage, Attorney-at-Law

¶ 01 Thank you for the opportunity, Hon. Presiding Member.

¶ 02 Today we debate Regulations on shared use of telecom infrastructure. Yet throughout the day, it seems the Opposition is trying to turn this into a mud-slinging session, instead of engaging on policy, principles, and statistics. We were called to debate these Regulations, but only a handful from the Opposition even referred to them.

¶ 03 When opposition first began, we assumed they would debate on policy. Now, they cannot find even a day’s worth of material; they struggle to speak even a minute on the topic. In this august House, there are highly sensitive legal matters and high-profile cases. If people engaged in such cases speak here in a threatening tone against prosecutors, we must pay attention. I also call the Hon. Speaker’s attention to the need to examine such threatening statements against prosecutors handling high-profile cases.

¶ 04 These Regulations under Section 17(2) of the Act apply to all operators. This allows telcos to share infrastructure. The public is watching to see what we discuss. We must inform them why these Regulations are needed and what benefits will accrue.

¶ 05 In general terms, this is to prevent duplicative build—minimizing “overbuild” or “rebuild” of the same facility. The underlying principle is regulating telecom networks for sustainability—how to deliver public benefit through networks sustainably.

¶ 06 There is a trade-off: environmental and cost impact sharing versus duplication. Internationally, many instruments exist. For example, the Digital Regulation Platform by the International Telecommunication Union and the World Bank states: “Despite its critical importance, the infrastructure is now under threat. War, pandemics, climate change, natural disasters, increase in the cost of living and the crises in the global market economy have all heaped pressure on the utility of infrastructure. Therefore, a major rethinking of the role of infrastructure is now underway.”

¶ 07 As a Government with a policy of digitalization, our key challenge is how to manage this infrastructure while moving towards that goal. Countries like India, the Philippines and across South-East Asia are pursuing collaboration and sharing. But our TRC lacked clear regulatory authority and oversight to enforce such sharing. Hence these Regulations, which we are now set to approve.

¶ 08 We talk of a smart generation and the next phase of technology, yet people still lose signal in many villages. Infrastructure sharing can help address coverage gaps and reduce capex. If each operator builds separate towers everywhere, capex balloons. Instead, we can improve service quality through sharing. Benefits will pass to users through improved quality and competitive conditions.

¶ 09 Environmentally, after the “Diththa” cyclone, we must re-evaluate utilities on the ground. With limited land, especially in city design and planning, we must optimize. Sharing networks through properly structured and contracted mechanisms enables better urban design, including reducing visual pollution—important for tourism areas and scenic views.

¶ 10 The TRC will be empowered to regulate, including the required contents of sharing agreements: types, key terms, duration, pricing, and the authority to reject any agreement deemed contrary to public interest. After TRC decisions are placed on the official website, a 10-day period is provided to receive public comments; final decisions must respect public input.

¶ 11 Let me reiterate: as a Government, we move forward on policy—digitalization whose benefits reach the villages, along with the necessary Regulations and decisions, while also responding to mud-slinging when needed. I trust the intelligent public understands the difference between Government and Opposition today. I conclude, thanking you for the time, Hon. Presiding Member.