• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

PREDICTABLY, THE MAJORITY verdict of the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal on the vexatious technology interface issue has once again left both parties claiming victory. Unfortunately, this verdict has done little to clarify the domain of basic operators offering `limited mobility' service and distinguish it from that of the cellular players. And the war of attrition between the two warring camps is unlikely to end soon.

For the basic operators, the verdict offers a breather permitting them to use their existing mobile switching centres (which strictly fall under mobile architecture) to offer limited mobility. This is rather surprising, for, according to the majority verdict, the Mobile Switching Centre technology, which keeps a customer connected even as he is roaming, did not find a mention either in the basic operators' licence agreement or in the official letters from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) or the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). On top of that, the verdict had also termed the basic operators licence agreement ambiguous on the issue of use of appropriate technology architecture or interface by these operators. The nitty-gritty of legal phraseology notwithstanding, there is little doubt that the Government had in mind some distinction in the nature of service provided by the two sets of players. This becomes all the clearer when one considers the fact that the Government went into such elaborate details while specifying the kind of technology that basic operators should use in customer interface or in the network architecture. Having done so, it cannot really remain a mute spectator when the ambiguity in the language is sought to be exploited by one to render any distinction with the other impossible. In the circumstances, the TDSAT is entirely justified in demanding that the Government enforce the service distinction between the two sets of players.

A good starting point for the DoT would be to ensure that the basic service operators licence is amended to put an end to "virtual roaming". Those basic operators who have been violating the spirit of `limited mobility' granted in their licence agreements by offering services to their customers that enable calls being transferred to locations beyond the local area of mobility through such devices as call forwarding or multiple registrations, must be directed to desist from doing so. But this is unlikely to leave the issue unchallenged by the basic operators, thanks to the vagueness of the terms of the basic licence agreement. A viable long-term solution would be a move towards `unified licence' covering the whole range of telecom services. No doubt, the entry fee that may have to be levied on basic operators to put them on a par with the cellular operators will be a contentious issue. A satisfactory resolution of this would be the challenge for the Group of Ministers on Telecom charged with this responsibility.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
Tangles unlimited

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line