I have been quite critical on "termination charges". One reaction I received to my previous post via e-mail was quite eye-opening.
I have a friend, he was a member of the board of the regulator in XXXX. He ‘was’ because next day after regulator presented decision to lower MTRs, parliament (instead approving this decision) voted to change the CEO and the board. He was a member of dispute resolution commission. While resolving an ordinary dispute one of the sides started to influence him. Finally some people were trying to shut him. That’s more or less realistic picture of regulatory environment in developing country.
As a Dutchman I don't know what corruption is. It doesn't really exist here as far as I know. Maybe I'm blind, but we're doing pretty well according to Transparency International and World Audit Corruption. However, most countries are fighting a 2 TRILLION dollar industry (services (fixed and mobile)and equipment), when they want to change the rules to make sure that their country benefits from (mobile) telecommunications. To see some recent examples look for instance to these postings by Steve Song about telecoms in Africa, or at Russia aiming to ban foreign VoIP. Benefiting often means more for the same money, or more for less money and this is perceived as a loss by the local telecommunications companies.
You know, it's an increase in telecommunications usage that benefits economies, not an increase in telecommunications revenues, but that is awfully easy to say from the Northern bit of Europe