From silos to synergy: Rethinking Bangladesh’s regulatory framework

Bangladesh’s regulatory system has long been organised along sectoral lines. Separate authorities oversee telecommunications, banking and financial services, energy, capital markets, competition, ICT and taxation. This structure worked when sectors operated largely in isolation. Today, technological change and digitalisation have reshaped how these sectors function. Economic activity no longer sits neatly within regulatory boundaries. Decisions taken by one regulator increasingly affect outcomes in others. This growing interdependence makes closer collaboration not just desirable, but essential.

Several key regulators now operate in overlapping domains. The Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) regulates telecommunications, data transmission and digital platforms. The Bangladesh Bank oversees banks, digital payments, fintech activities and aspects of cybersecurity in the financial system. The Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission (BERC) regulates energy pricing and is becoming more involved in smart grids and digital metering. The Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission (BSEC) governs capital markets, including digital trading platforms and technology-driven investment services. Alongside them, the Competition Commission ensures fair market practices, the ICT Division and the Digital Security Agency handle digital governance and cybersecurity, and the National Board of Revenue (NBR) administers taxation of digital services.

Individually, these mandates are clear. Collectively, they intersect in ways traditional models did not anticipate. Mobile financial services offer a clear example. They rely on telecom networks regulated by BTRC, financial rules overseen by Bangladesh Bank, digital security frameworks shaped by ICT authorities, and taxation policies administered by NBR. A regulatory change in one domain, whether on data usage, transaction limits or pricing, can ripple across the rest.

Image

A particularly urgent area of convergence is broadcasting and telecommunications, where technological change has blurred old boundaries. Broadcasting was once a content-focused, one-to-many service under the information ministry, while telecommunications centred on infrastructure under BTRC. That distinction no longer holds. Audiovisual content is now delivered over IP-based networks through OTT platforms, streaming services, IPTV and social media. Spectrum, infrastructure, data networks and content distribution are tightly integrated. As a result, the roles of BTRC and the information ministry increasingly overlap.

Decisions on spectrum allocation, network capacity, platform licensing, service quality and consumer protection now carry implications for both sectors. OTT platforms depend on telecom networks, yet raise questions about content standards, advertising, cultural policy and taxation. IPTV and hybrid services sit squarely at this intersection.

A similar pattern is emerging in energy. Smart meters and digital billing systems lie at the crossroads of energy regulation, ICT infrastructure, data governance and consumer protection. While BERC focuses on pricing and policy, telecom connectivity, data privacy and cybersecurity fall under other authorities. Without coordination, gaps and inconsistencies are almost inevitable.

Fintech and digital lending underline the same trend. These services combine banking functions, digital platforms and connectivity, alongside software, data and security concerns. Competition policy and taxation cut across all of them.

When regulators operate in isolation, such overlaps can create uncertainty, duplicative compliance and delays for new services. Gaps between mandates may leave risks insufficiently regulated or encourage regulatory arbitrage. Fragmentation also weakens the ability to manage systemic risks, especially when shocks, such as cyber incidents or payment disruptions, spread quickly across sectors.

Crisis management is a particular concern. Cyber threats, digital fraud and infrastructure failures rarely respect sectoral lines, yet responses are often confined within single institutions. This increases the risk of delay or misalignment. Stronger collaboration is therefore critical for economic efficiency, financial stability and consumer protection. It can reduce uncertainty, support innovation and ensure consistent standards while aligning with Bangladesh’s wider digital ambitions. Importantly, this does not require sacrificing regulatory independence or creating a “super regulator”. It is about coherent oversight through aligned processes, shared risk assessment and regular collaboration.

These arrangements focus on alignment and information sharing, not on centralising authority. Several Commonwealth countries have adopted converged or functionally coordinated regulatory models without dismantling their broader administrative structures. The United Kingdom, for example, moved early towards a converged regulator model by integrating telecoms, broadcasting and spectrum oversight within a single authority, while maintaining strong coordination with competition and data protection bodies. Australia followed a similar path by aligning telecommunications, broadcasting and online content regulation within a unified framework, complemented by clear coordination mechanisms with competition, financial and cybersecurity regulators. Singapore, though institutionally distinct, shows how strong statutory coordination and clear lead regulator principles can achieve convergence outcomes even when regulators remain formally separate.

In all these cases, convergence was achieved with minimal bureaucratic disruption. Rather than wholesale restructuring, reforms focused on harmonising mandates, adopting technology-neutral laws, clarifying inter-agency responsibilities and institutionalising coordination mechanisms.

In Bangladesh, coordination currently takes place mainly through informal consultations or ministry-led committees, often on an ad hoc basis. While useful, these mechanisms lack permanence and institutional memory. There is no standing platform where regulators can regularly discuss emerging cross-sector risks, align regulatory priorities, or jointly plan responses to technological change.

A practical way forward would be to institutionalise an inter-regulatory coordination framework. Such a framework could bring together regulators like BTRC, Bangladesh Bank, BERC, BSEC, the Competition Commission, ICT authorities, Information Commission and NBR to address cross-cutting issues such as digital finance, smart infrastructure, data governance and platform-based markets. Much of this can be achieved through executive decisions and interagency agreements, without immediate changes to existing laws.

As the Bangladesh economy becomes more digital and interconnected, regulatory effectiveness will depend not only on the strength of individual institutions but also on how well they work together. The question is no longer whether inter-regulatory collaboration is needed, but how quickly it can become a permanent feature of the governance framework. Initially, a cell could be formed under the Cabinet Division or the Prime Minister’s Office to begin coordinating different regulators.

The writer is the chief executive officer of a telecom company and a telecom researcher. He can be reached at mfakml@gmail.com