Cross connection

The controversy around 3G mobile roaming is being needlessly escalated by the Department of Telecom. Whatever the legal terminology employed in the licensing agreement, the operators are guilty of nothing more than enlisting new subscribers; collaborating with one another in sharing infrastructure and expanding the market for high speed data service. In the process, they also benefited the Government by generating extra revenues by way of licence fees. For their troubles, they have not only been slapped with penalty notices running into several hundred crores of rupees but, additionally, been served with show-cause notices alleging improper use of spectrum allotted to them in their respective circles and threatened with revocation of licences. If the spectrum allocation is indeed revoked, then it would push an already depressed sector into the dark abyss with large-scale impact on consumers. That would be unfortunate as 3G mobile service is beginning to see an uptake in business volumes after an initial slow start, with data consumption nearly doubling in 2012. This is due not just to the growing popularity of social networks and entertainment sites but also because of the growing awareness about services like mobile banking and online education. Any disruption in 3G services would have a cascading effect on the digital economy.

The touchstone of any policy should be to the benefit of the common people, which at times demands flexibility in implementing the law with emphasis on adhering to spirit rather than letter. In the case of 3G services, the operators got into an agreement to share spectrum so that they can offer 3G connections in each other’s area of operation. Similar deals have been announced for 2G voice calls without drawing DoT’s ire. Technological changes have enabled telecom companies to offer different types of services in the same spectrum band. This calls for a new approach to the utilisation of spectrum resources, as opposed to the existing one where an operator is given spectrum, say, of 1,800 MHz frequency that can only be used for 2G (voice) services. Likewise, 2,100 MHz spectrum is now exclusively for 3G operators, while 4G services can be offered only on 2,300 MHz. Once spectrum is sold to the operators, then the Government should allow market forces to determine the usage.

The Government should also speed up its proposal to allow spectrum sharing to rectify the flaws in existing policy. The more spectrum an operator holds, the more telephone conversations and data traffic it can carry over its network. If spectrum sharing is allowed, then there will be greater opportunity for each operator to get access to a larger pool of air waves, in turn ensuring that spectrum does not lie fallow. The present arrangement among operators has a natural self-limiting quality about it. As the data usage grows, the operators would find it difficult to sustain quality of service on shared spectrum, leaving them no option but to acquire more from the Government. With mobile number portability in place, consumers too would shop around for service providers with superior infrastructure. The Government should forthwith desist from going down the present path.