Independent | Innovative | Inspiring



International Telecommunications Student Papers: Olshanetskaya (Page 2) - California Western
International Telecom Student Papers: Olshanetskaya (Page 2)

Privatization of Wireless Communications in Russia

by Darya Olshanetskaya 


Ministry of Antimonopoly Policy and Enterprise Support (MAP)

Ministry for Antimonopoly Policy and Enterprise Support (MAP) was created in October 1998, and it is responsible for regulating natural monopolies in communications and transport. In practice, however, the division of responsibility between Antimonopoly Ministry and Ministry of Communications is unclear. For instance, cellular operators recently complained to the MAP about CDMA operators, which, as we indicated above, are officially licensed only for fixed-wireless service, but have been offering mobile as well. However, it was Ministry of Communications, not Antimonopoly Ministry, which ruled in favor of the cellular operators. Since Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he does not want to break up the natural monopolies, this state of affairs is likely to continue.

 Equipment Certification (Gossvyaznadzor)

A division of Ministry of Communications, the Department of Control (Gossvyaznadzor), issues technical licenses for use of radio frequencies. Gossvyaznadzor has its representative in every region, local city governments also have an influence over licensing decisions that may compete with city networks in which they own a stake.

 In Russia, local telecommunications equipment production has received protectionist support from the Ministry of Telecommunications since 1997, when the Ministry announced priorities in procurement for Russian-made equipment. After this announcement twelve joint ventures with western companies were launched for the purpose to make switchboards for use in large and medium-size cities. Of the more than 30 million telephone ports installed by Russia telecom operators in the past few years, more than three million lines still are not in use, mainly due to the "last mile" problem. And this problem is caused by lack of perfect quality of existing equipment as well.27

All imported equipment to Russia must undergo certification. A division of Goskomsvyaz, the State Communications Technical Inspectorate, performs equipment certification. Telecommunications equipment certification has been a source of frustration, for importers of foreign equipment, who report that the process is overly time-consuming and expensive. In response to complaints from equipment vendors, Goskomsvyaz has stated that it is in the process of harmonizing its certification requirements with WTO and European Union guidelines. However, equipment vendors, particularly of new technology products such as IP (Internet Providers) telephony gateways, claim that little progress has been made and still find it difficult to get their products into the country. The frequency allocation process is problematic. Although the law states that operators must get a frequency allocation prior to applying for technical license, in practice the exact opposite occurs. In addition, operators applying for frequency, particularly GSM, have reported delays of up to one or even two years. The situation is improving, however: the GSM-1800 licenses awarded in 1999 included the frequency in the price of the license. Nevertheless, the lack of an independent regulator means that there is no guarantee that license applicants will not need to pay separately for frequency in the future.28

 Article 15 of a new draft of Federal Statute "Law On Telecommunications" establishes several changes in Governmental regulation of use of the radio frequency spectrum. There are three main novelties to the current Statute:

 - Radio Frequency Register (with the guarantees to keep it opened for any interested person);

 - establishing the procedure for the allocation of radio frequencies, specific conditions of developing and operating of radio-electronic facilities as well as information on conditions and characteristics of radio frequencies and on their use;

 - use of the radio frequency spectrum shall be exercised on the basis of payment.

 Protectionism of local equipment productions has stimulated the development of Russia’s wireless communications networks. Despite the economic crisis, cellular network operators enjoyed 100% growth in 1999, to one million subscribers.

 Technological policy and national interests of Russia

The main goal of technological policy is modernization of currently existed systems and networks. Today, only 26% of the existing telecommunications equipment is matching to world requirements. The Concept sets the necessity of modernization of public service networks for the purposes of efficient market functions.

 For the purposes of national telecommunications market development and national interests security the Concept establishes the limitations for foreign investors participation, both direct and as a secondary, at the charter capitals of Russian legal persons. The main idea has to be support of national industry and manufacture and establishment of special legal provisions circumstances for efficient development of national communications industry.

 The limitations for foreign investors contradict with the whole Concept of market development itself. The total amount of investments, which is extremely necessary for further development of telecommunications market for the period of 10 years, is $33.00 milliards (1,13 milliards rubles). And this amount is currently impossible to receive from national service providers, and the only opportunity is to attract foreign investments more and probably do not allow them to have control stake of the shares.29

 At the same time, a new Federal Statute "On Foreign Investments in the Russian Federation" (the "New Statute") has been signed on July 9, 1999, which replaces the much-amended Federal Statute "On Foreign Investments in the Russian Federation", (the "Old Statute"), dated July 4, 1991, for the purpose of creation and organization of support for foreign investors. Overall, the New Statute breaks little new ground in the treatment of foreign investors in Russia. It is principle innovation, a provision protecting certain investors from unfavorable changes in legislation (i.e. "grandfather clause"), is so qualified and riddled with exceptions as to be useless except to a very narrow class of foreign investor. Meanwhile, in several places, the New Law represents a step backwards, omitting general principles of protection, as well as specific privileges, set forth by the Old Statute.30

 Even though the market development moves forward, a legal base of telecom regulation still exist on the old level. For instance, a draft of a new Statute "Law On Communications" has been submitted to Russian Parliament in January of 1999 but it still has not been either approved by the Parliament or signed by the President. The new Statute does not bring huge changes in an old one, but there are some significant amendments currently existing in real life and technical industry development, which finally could be fixed on the legal basis. New peculiarities of the Statute depend on the whole power system and the role of government in the country. Article 5 of this Statute establishes openness of activities of state agencies and authorized bodies in the communications sphere, and Article 48 indicates that any disclosure of personal data is allowed only by prior approval of the user herself. At the same time, the Statute states the main idea of implementation of the System of Operative and Investigative Actions (SORM). This system is de facto a violation of constitutional right and freedoms of the users for secured communication and awareness for non-disclosure of personal information. While signing the agreement with the service operator, the customer wants to be aware of confidentiality of her communications. Article 17 of the same Statute indicates that the relationships between operative and investigative authorized bodies and communication service operators shall be established on the basis of Federal legislation.

 Since this new Federal Statute has not been signed yet the provisions related to SORM system has not been adopted till July of last year. On July 25, 2000, the Minister of Communications, Leonid Reiman, signed a new regulation "On the Order of Introduction of the System of Technical Means to Provide Operative and Investigative Actions in Networks of Telephone, Mobile, and Wireless Communication and Personal Radio Calls". This new regulation established the introduction of the System of Operative and Investigative Actions (SORM), even there were many scandals on other countries, and the Supreme Court held the introduction of this system is illegal.

 "This regulation is the final confirmation of the theory that we are returning to a police state where security services have unlimited powers over their compatriots," holds Yuri Vdovin, Deputy Chair of the Civil Monitoring Human Rights Group.31

 No doubt the security services must have the opportunity to carry out operative and investigative actions with the use of communication technology. It’s necessary for the purpose of protection of our lives and freedoms. But the running the system itself contradicts with the current Federal Statute "On Operative Investigative Activities" (Article 9), which indicates that the Court permission is mandatory for the purpose of introduction of the system. However, the same Statute indicates in Article 5, that Federal Security Bureau (FSB), and Interior Ministry, and Tax Police has the technological tools in order to carry out such activities as their disposal.32

 Both articles’ provisions contradict each other and, therefore, it is a question whether the supreme power belongs to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation or the above-mentioned regulative authorities have the same scope of the power to implement the special permissions for themselves. One should know that when the new Federal Statute "Law On Communications" is signed it will contradict with the provisions of the July’s Order because the SORM implementation has to be based on the Federal legislation.

 There is also a purely financial issue emerging in connection with SORM system. The communication operator shall pay for setting up and activating the system. And money will be taken from subscribers and users, which obviously are not interested in installation of the system because it is a violation of their constitutional rights on freedom of communications. Currently, it is one of the main concerns of the mobile telecommunications companies because of illegal base of enforcement of such regulations.33

 Article 14 of the Statute "Law On Communications" establishes (actually, confirms) the state regulation basis for application of communications facilities and state guarantees to the customers. The Statute confirms again that it is almost impossible to allow self-regulation of the communication’s operators on the market, and Governmental role is still the main one "in order to ensure the operational stability". Currently, state regulation of communications facilities’ application include mandatory certification of communication facilities, determination of procedures for using limited resources of telephone numbers in public communications networks, and other measures established by the Russian legislation.

 Article 23 of the Statute regulates the administration process of number resources. Number resources are limited and, therefore, have to be specifically regulated by the Government. The Statute establishes the licensing regime only for use of public communications networks phone numbers by the operators. Any other identification codes, which have a significant meaning for communication services have to be regulated by the Government but without licensing control, and they are not always limited.

 This Article also establishes that the Communications regulating authorities shall set conditions determining the particular right to use the numbers.

 Article 23 indicates that numbers shall be allocated at the request of a direct user of communications networks or a telephone services operator. The networks operators shall ensure on their communications networks retention of the numbers allocated to the users, upon change of communications service provider.34

 Other Articles establish a new type of state regulation at the communications market, which are related to the same kind of provisions of the Concept. There are two large groups of the rules: one of them related to the protection of competition on the market of communications; other rules regulate universal communications services.

 Article 27 indicates that communications service operators have significant market power if their market share, together with subsidiaries and parent company, is at least 25% of the turnover of the specific geographically limited and/or materially defined market, or at least 25% of the traffic in the case of the geographically limited interconnection service market, unless the communications services operator proves that the holding of such market share or traffic does not prejudice free competition on the specific market. This definition has been made for the purpose of antimonopoly regulation.35

 The rate of 25% of market share or traffic has been established in European as well as former USSR countries’ legislation. From the practical experience it has been found if the market share rate is more or even less than 25% it creates a negative influence on the market competition.

 The implementation of new basic rules for the purpose of regulation of communications service operators activity is based on the necessity of changes of current "unnatural monopolists" at the communications market to the new service operators. These legal provisions also important for regional (or local) service operators and also for signing contracts between large and small communications service operators.

 Article 28 also establishes the regime for the purpose of protection and support fair competition in providing communications services, by means of realizing a united policy in the execution of licensing, establishing a normative legal basis for the activities of communications service operators, and supervising the observance by the communications services operators of license requirements and conditions. The main purpose of this article is to maintain guarantees of economical activity for communications service operators, which just started their activity.

 Several articles of the Statute regulate the legal regime of providing universal communications services, establishing charge fees for universal communications services, and peculiarities of determining of charge fees for local communications services. Thus, Article 36 indicates that local telephone services may be paid on subscriber’s fee or time-rate basis. The proposed introduction of a time-rate payment system for public telecommunications services shall take place in conjunction with determination of a minimal time frame, paid via subscriber’s fee. The deregulation in Russian market also included liberalization of its basic telecom service providers.


Rostelecom, Russia’s national service operator, was the first Russian telecommunications provider to undergo privatization process. At the same time other eighty-five regional telecommunications companies have been formed. Rostelecom is also Russian main international telecommunications carrier. In 1992 Rostelecom (former called Sovtelecom) had only 1000 international lines (and only 0.3% of these lines were digital), while by 1996 it has already operated about 2000 international digital lines. The financial crisis of 1998 forced the Company to cut down its investment programs to a considerable extent. However, the work on development and improvement of Rostelecom digital network continued. Currently, the Company controls more than 90% of international connections for Russian customers and provides international connections to more than 200 countries. Other international operators such as Sovintel, DirectNet, and Combellga are expanding their activities in Russia. Currently, the Company is considered as a monopolist provider of local and international services.36

 As it was announced on March 14, 2000, at the press conference of Minister of Communications Leonid Reiman, the Ministry planned "step-by-step" demonopolization of Rostelecom. Leonid Reiman also asserted that it takes a long time to liberalize Rostelecom because there is no any alternative service operator at the Russian market. Reiman also said that the best technically developed operator is a Closed Joint-Stock Company "Transtelecom". The largest hardship and main negative aspect is that Transtelecom network odes not cover the whole territory of Russia, and its network is currently only the system of cable lines and not the primary network, which consists of communications centers and the management systems.37


In 1995, Svyazinvest, a state holding company, which consolidated the government stakes in all of the 85 local operating companies, was created. It is covering 93% of the Russian population. Moscow region is an exception, which is controlled by Moscow public operator, Moscow City Telephone (MGTS). The government held 51% of Svyazinvest, with the remaining 49% of the charter capital intended for sale at auction.

 In July 1997, the Russian Government sold 25% plus 1 share of the Svyazinvest holding for $1,875 milliard. The announced tender was won by the Cyprus-based offshore company Mustcom, Ltd., which included Russian bank, Oneksimbank, MFK, the Renaissance Capital Investment Fund, Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Morgan Stanley Asset Management, and G. Soros’ Quantum Fund. The received profit after the transaction has been made went almost entirely to the government budget, and Svyazinvest retained $95 million.

 On April 3, 1998, the Russian Ministry of State Property has announced a new open tender to the state shares owned in Svyazinvest. For the first time, the foreign investors obtained a permission to participate in the opened tender, scheduled to September 8, 1998. It was allowed because even the foreign investors participated in the scheduled sale they will not get obtain a controlling stake of the Company and the 2d tranche does not have blocking rights.

 There were no foreign operators involved in the consortium, and thus no participant with telecoms network operation experience. A second indication that regional operators were isolated from Svyazinvest’s control was the attempt of operators in some of the wealthier regions of the country, such as Tyumen in Siberia, to issue American Depository Receipts (ADRs) in order to bring foreign investment directly.38

 The August 1998 financial crisis forced the government to put on hold its plans for a second privatization of Svyazinvest. Currently, because the economy shows signs of recovery, the government has been making announcements about holding the privatization in 2000. The Svyazinvest holding planned to prepare the shares of the regional service operators for the tender, while these shares belonged to the state. But the whole situation in the country shows the reality that the earliest privatization possibility will most likely occur in 2001.

 According to the new Concept of telecommunications market development the restructuring process of the Company’s subsidiaries shall take place in the nearest 2-3 years. During this process they suppose to create seven huge long-distance service operators based on currently existing 78 regional (local) companies. A new marketing strategy and technical policy has also to be a part of restructuring process.

 Regional Services. Current Development.

Long-distance and international telephony providers are liberalized. Only one company usually provides the regional service in Russia, while Rostelecom handles a long distance and international calls. Being the sole national carrier, Rostelecom retains long distance trunk lines throughout Russia. Revenues from long distance and international service in regions are shared between Rostelecom itself and local telephony providers. Local operators would like to have more freedom and to get more profit from the domestic calls. However, Rostelecom controls the majority of the long distance traffic and, therefore, will get its own part of the revenue.

 Because the Russian licensing regime until 1998 was to award local rather than regional licenses and in three different standards, and operators in the provinces of Russia did not have an incentive to expand their coverage or lower their tariffs to serve any subscribers but the wealthiest. Despite this, however, subscriber growth in the regions was stronger between 1998 and 1999 than it was between 1997 and 1998. In particular, the number of GSM as well as AMPS subscribers doubled.

 Since privatization process in the early 1990s, Russia’s telecom industry still dominated by scores of small regional operators, which most of the time lack to attract the investors they desperately need. However, last year, Arkhangelsk-based local service operator, Artelcom, and Elektrosvyaz of Karelia, revamped management practices and spreadheaded a drive to merge eleven northwest firms into a super-regional operator, the first in a series of planned such consolidations. In addition to steps such as introducing international accounting standards, firms consolidate subsidiaries, reduced staff, and adopted stringent investment criteria. The main goal was to give the merged companies an opportunity to achieve a western style of work and to make it worth for further market development. "The companies are truly pioneers", said Yelena Sidorovich, director of investor relations at Svyazinvest, which has controlling stakes in virtually every Russian telecom.

 Of course the changes have not been a panacea for all net losses of both companies. But both Artelekom and Elektrosvyaz announced their year-to-year losses had shrunk in 2000 on 30-40%. Both companies’ officials sound optimistic about further developments and hope to stabilize the tariff rates and to earn the profit at the same time. The General Director of Artelekom also announced that applying new methods to a consolidated northwest telecom would stimulate earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization, by 400 million roubles ($14.4 million). However, privatization of the local telecom operators supposes to stimulate both local and Western investment in the growing industry.39

 On December 20, 2000, LCC International, Inc., one of the global leaders in wireless voice and data turn-key technical consulting services, announced marketing agreement with Transmast, Ltd., an expert in the field of antenna masts, to support the wireless network design, deployment and operation throughout Europe and parts of Asia. Since Transmast participates in local operations around Scandinavia, the Baltic countries and Russia, it probably allows Russia to maintain its local wireless networks on the new level, while identify and capitalize on current market opportunities.40

 On March 20, 2001 the Moscow-based Mobile Telecommunications Systems (MTS) Company announced its decision to purchase St. Petersburg’ Telecom XXI – and the city cell-phone subscribers using GSM-standard services may reap the benefits of lower prices as a result. The MTS General Director Mikhail Smirnov did not comment on financial specifics of the purchase, but a report in the business daily newspaper estimated the probable cost at about $50 million.

 Being awarded, along with North-West GSM, one of the two licenses to operate on the GSM standard in the Northwest region, Telecom XXI has done little to begin operations. Even they installed 15 base stations in the city center and one switching center to handle cellular traffic, the Company did not start its commercial usage of the network. While there is an agreement between both companies, they still need to obtain a final approval from Antimonopoly Ministry, which can consider the merger transaction turns to monopoly at the telecommunication market.

 The MTS General Director hopes to clear regulatory barriers in a short period of time. His main purpose to increase rapidly the speed of signing up new subscribers in St. Petersburg in order to allow the St. Petersburg’ region achieves a level of Moscow region.

 Currently, the analysts regarding this merger transaction were mixed. "The acquisition of a GSM license for St. Petersburg and the Northwest region will be a major positive development for MTS, as St. Petersburg is the second most lucrative market in Russia for telecommunications services after Moscow. "The local market has a great deal of room to grow", a report by Renaissance Capital released said. Others do not predict such a glowing future. "The St. Petersburg market is less lucrative than the market in Moscow. A new operator will face huge expenses in order to built a new network. Of course, we should not forget that St. Petersburg is the second largest market after Moscow and MTS is in a strong economic position because of its little debt and its first place as far as attracting the interest of potential investors among Russian telecommunications companies. MTS will have the advantage of being able to provide low St. Petersburg-Moscow roaming tariffs to the subscribers."

 In general, it will be a new opportunity for St. Petersburg market to make savings for its subscribers.41 Any other steps towards further investments to the national operators, their merger to the more large companies, fair market competition, will probably allow them to improve their positions and attract more national subscribers.


 According to the experience of telecommunications companies in Russia, there is a number of issues that need to be resolved, included:

  • legal and regulatory instability and uncertainty of enforcement;
  • improvement of the process of certification of telecommunications services;
  • improvement of licensing procedures for provision of telecommunications services in Russia;
  • legal protection of investments in the Russian telecommunications sector.

 As fraught with danger as it might be, something also must be done to redress some of the privatization abuses of the past. A study by Russian Duma Committee on Privatization has reported that, from 1992 to 1996, the government collected only $ 20 billion from the sale of about 70% of what had been the nation’s state enterprises. According to their study, "too much was sold off, and often at the wrong time," under a set of laws that "covered only about 15% of the legal issues involved". The reforms will be successful only when there is a pressure from the public at large and the business community, not only for a set of more equitable laws but for the enforcement of those laws, both from above and below.42

 More dramatic increases in IC production are currently hampered by a lack of investment and an obsolete production base, with suppliers boxed into the very law ASP end of the market. With a strong, telecom-driven market pull developing, conditions will soon be ripe for direct foreign investment in state-of-the-art wafer fabs in Eastern Europe and Russia.

 Russia expected to have up to 15 million cellular subscribes by 2005, the number of mobile phone subscribers supposedly will rise to 10-15 million by 2005. The experts’ forecast that the more Russian economy stabilizes, the more demand for mobile communications services among individuals will grow. Experts predict that it will be even faster than in the business sector.

 Innovation at the telecommunications market is the adoption of the third generation telecoms system. The third generation (3G) mobile systems could become a means of mass communications, offering traditional (telephone, fax, etc.) and other services, including access to the Internet, remote computing and advanced mobile data processing services. Third generation wireless promises universal coverage and telecommunications terminals (handsets) capable of seamless worldwide roaming, passing across multiple networks in different countries with no perceptible interruption or even degradation in service.43 They are planning to set up a mobile Internet based on the third generation mobile technology. In general, the possibilities held out by 3G wireless are extremely attractive. It will also offer exciting new and less expensive alternatives to wireless service for public uses, including networking of schools, libraries and remote or rural communities. They predict that a new third generation networks of the cellular standards UMTS will be launched in Russia by August 2001, Chairman of the Russian Association of Third Generation Cellular Communications Operators (3G) Alexander Krupnov. The applications for setting up the three trial networks of the 3d generation have been received from North-West GSM and Delta Telecom (St. Petersburg) and Impulse (Moscow). They also received applications to test third generation equipment from the Moscow companies Mobile Telesystems and Moscow cellular.44

 The Association also announced that their tasks include the development of an organizational, technical and legal base for the introduction of 3G cellular technology in Russia and mechanism of licensing of Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) operators.

 Later it was announced that Russia is planning to issue the country’s first third-generation licenses in the beginning of 2001, nevertheless, no licenses have been issued up till the present moment. Leonid Reiman, Minister of Communications, was evasive in naming the candidates, saying both Russian and foreign companies would be able to compete.

 The Minister believes major Russian cities, such as Moscow and St. Petersburg, can initially have at most two 3G carriers. "We are first and foremost interested that such communication systems are being built and developed in Russia," Reiman said. Although the Association of Third Generation Cellular Communications Operators states that its members receive no special consideration in obtaining a license, carrier Mobile Telesystems (MTS) expressed confidence it would receive a license and launch a 3G network at the end of 2001. Vimpelcom said it is conducting.45

 Foreign investors still keep their intent to invest their money to Russia. For instance, Scandinavian telecommunications companies have their reason – if they do not come, others will come instead of them.


 The lessons of the previous years show that even though the Russian experience is not the same as other WTO Agreement members, there are many similarities in the steps of wireless market’s development and future novations. The main challenge is still the creation of the market where the competition will not eliminate or undermine the government’s control. The foreign investment will have a great success in penetrating new and existing markets. To be successful, there must be a strong political, regulatory, and cultural commitment to privatization, as well as an understanding of both the ramifications and its effects on traditional regimes. This will require exhaustive research of the potential markets and sensitivity to the political and cultural environment.46


2 See Id.

3 See Id.

4 Global Retailing In a Consumer-Centric Universe, Malaysian Business, May 16, 2000, at 45, available at LEXIS, Nexis Library, News File


6 …/ShowLetter?MsgId=2936_1615271_20135_719_522584_0&YY=54731&inc=25&order=dow

7 See Id.

8 See Id.

9 M.Kukushkin, No Standard Means no Problem, Telecommunications Services Market, February 7, 2000, available at LEXIS, Nexis Library, News File

10 A. Golyshko, A. Markovich, CDMA at the Russian Market, at


12 See Supra note 6


14 Kontseptsya Razvitiya Rynka Telecommunicatsionnykh Uslug [The Concept of Development of Telecommunications Market], December 21, 2000

16 Russian Telecoms, Western Style, Reuter, at,1367,39020,00.html

17 See supra note 14

18 Kontseptsya Razvitiya Rynka Telecommunicatsionnykh Uslug [The Concept of Development of Telecommunications Market], December 21, 2000, supra note 14

19 See Id.

20 See Id.

21 See Id

22 See Id.

23 See supra note 14.

24 Draft of the Federal Statute of the Russian Federation On Amending the Federal Statute "On Communications", at

25 Kommentariy k Proektu Federal’nogo Zakona RF "O vnesenii izmeneniy i dopolneniy v Federal’niy Zakon "O Svyazi" [Comments to the Draft of the Federal Statute On Amending the Federal Statute "On Communications"], at

26 See Id.

27 Reuter, Russian Telecoms, Western Style, at,1367,39020,00.html

28 Malcolm G. Penn, 'Silicon East' Awaits Gold Rush, at


30 Sergei Marinich & Robert Zafft, Russia’s New Foreign Investment Law, 3 Review of Central and East European Law, 435, 435-443, (1999)

31 Return to Police State, Novye Izvestia, September 9, at 4, available at LEXIS, Nexis Library, News File

32 See Id.

33 See Kommentariy k Proektu Federal’nogo Zakona RF "O vnesenii izmeneniy i dopolneniy v Federal’niy Zakon "O Svyazi" [Comments to the Draft of the Federal Statute On Amending the Federal Statute "On Communications"], at, supra note 16

34 See Draft of the Federal Statute..., supra note 24

35 Draft of the Federal Statute…, see Id.



38 Russia – Liberalization Of Telecommunications Industry: An Overview, International Market Inside Reports, July 24, 1998, available at LEXIS, Nexis Library, News Files

39 Russian Telecoms, Western Style, Reuters, at,1367,39020,00.html

40, (December 21, 2000)

41 (visited on March 23, 2001)

42 Goldman, Marshall, Reprivatizing Russia, May 1, 2000, at 28, available at LEXIS, Nexis Library, News File

43 Russia Expected To Have Up To 15 Mln Cellular Subscribers By 2005, Interfax News Agency, February 16, 2000, available at LEXIS, Nexis Library, Interfax Russian News


45 Alexander Nechaev, 3G Tender Planned For Next Year, Global Wireless, November 1, 2000, at 28, available at LEXIS, Nexis Library, News File

46 Andrea Johnson, Encouraging Foreign Investment In Developing Countries Through Privatization of Telecommunications, Paper at the WJA Conference in Austira, October, 1999, at 33 



Andrea Johnson, Encouraging Foreign Investment In Developing Countries Through Privatization of Telecommunications, Paper at the WJA Conference in Austira, October, 1999, at 33

Andrey Musatov, Purchase of Telecom XXI Is Finally a Reality, St.Petersburg Times, #655, March 23, 2001

Alexander Nechaev, 3G Tender Planned For Next Year, Global Wireless, November 1, 2000, at 28, available at LEXIS, Nexis Library, News File

Goldman, Marshall, Reprivatizing Russia, May 1, 2000, at 28, available at LEXIS, Nexis Library, News File

Global Retailing in a Consumer-Centric Universe, Malaysian Business, May 16, 2000, at 45, available at LEXIS, Nexis Library, News File

Malcolm G.Penn, ‘Silicon East’ Awaits Gold Rush, at

M. Kukushkin, No Standard Means No Problem, Telecommunications Services Market, February 7, 2000, available at LEXIS, Nexis Library, News File

Return To Police State, Novye Izvestia, September 9, at 4, available at LEXIS, Nexis Library, News File

Reuter, Russian Telecoms, Western Style

Russia Expected To Have Up To 15 Mln Cellular Subscribers By 2005, Interfax News Agency, February 16, 2000, available at LEXIS, Nexis Library, Interfax Russian News

Russia – Liberalization Of Telecommunications Industry: An Overview, International Market Inside Reports, July 24, 1998, available at LEXIS, Nexis Library, News File

Sergei Marinich & Robert Zafft, Russia’s New Foreign Investment Law, 3 Review of Central and East European Law, 435, 435-443, (1999)

Using Distance Learning to Facilitate the Transformation of the Regulatory, Business, and Social Environment in Russia, at

Internet Resources, (December 21, 2000)


Draft of the Federal Statute of the Russian Federation On Amending the Federal Statute "On Communications", at

Kommentariy k Proektu Federal’nogo Zakona RF "O vnesenii izmeneniy i dopolneniy v Federal’niy Zakon "O Svyazi" [Comments to the Draft of the Federal Statute On Amending the Federal Statute "On Communications"], at

Kontseptsya Razvitiya Rynka Telecommunicatsionnykh Uslug [The Concept of Development of Telecommunications Market], December 21, 2000

Law On Communications, available at

Polozhenie o Litsenzirovanii Deyatel’nosti v Oblasti Svyazi v Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Decree on Licensing of Communications in Russian Federation, #642, June 5, 1994]

Polozhenie o Sluzhbe Gosudarstvennogo Nadzora za Svyaz’yu v Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Decree on State Control on Communications of the Russian Federation, approved by the Government of the Russian Federation, #1156, November 15, 1993]