THE EDITOR, Sir:
THE HEADLINE of The Gleaner, Saturday, March 26, 2005 read 'Cellie-theft crackdown Police to get proactive following deaths of two schoolgirls recently'.
The story informed that the Criminal Investigating Division of the Jamaica Constabulary Force is promising a major crackdown on the theft of cellular phones.
This is another example of the blinkered practice of addressing symptoms and not causes. By itself, this action fails to address the cause of these murders.
Cellular telephone theft is caused, that is, driven by the separation of cellular telephone service from the equipment necessary to use the service.
It is difficult to accept or believe that the Telecommuni-cations Act of 2000 envisioned theft and murder.
BREEDING GROUND FOR THEFT
In the period before the Telecommunications Act of 2000, cellular telephones were mostly lost. In any event, whether lost or stolen, a cellular telephone and service were rendered useless, and offered no tangible benefit to the finder or thief, once the customer made a report to the service provider.
Under present conditions, all that is required is to obtain a cellular phone (by any means necessary) replace the sim card with one from an inexpensive or old phone, or purchase a sim card for '$400.00' and insert it in the cellular phone, and bingo, it works, no questions asked.
Significant, long-lasting reduction or an end to cellular theft cannot obtain if stolen cellular phones retain usefulness, have tangible benefits, value and profiling status. Therein lies the breeding ground for the upsurge in cellular phone theft.
The objectives of the Tele-communications Act of 2000 are "to promote and protect the interest of the public."
Among the other things listed are "providing for the protection of customers" and "ensuring that services are provided to persons able to meet the financial and technical obligations in relation to those services."
The Telecommunications Act of 2000 puts the administration of the Act within the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) and established its functions under the act.
OUR TO REGULATE
The act states that the function of the OUR is "to regulate specified services and facilities."
The OUR is also "to receive and process applications for a licence and make such recommendations to the minister in relation to the application as the office considers necessary or desirable."
Additionally, the OUR is "to promote the interest of customers, while having due regard to the interest of carriers and service providers."
From the ever-increasing reports of cellular phone theft and cellular phone theft resulting in murders, it does appear that the OUR, in carrying out its functions as presumably required by the act, has been considering it "necessary or desirable" to recommend to the minister applications for a licence and to regulate the specified services of the licence in a manner which appear to be inconsistent with the objectives of the act.
BURDENING THE POLICE
The already burdened Criminal Investigating Division of the Jamaica Constabulary Force ought not to be further burdened to solve these appalling and ghastly cellular phone crimes because of the failure of the OUR to recommend and regulate in a manner consistent with the objects of the act.
The prevailing conditions mandate that the OUR immediately commence regulating cellular phone services as it relates to promoting and protecting the interest of the public as is "necessary or desirable" to eliminate the factors driving cellular phone theft.
I am, etc.,
WARREN SIBBLIES
Kingston 19
