Trai to deal with cellcos' defiance
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
[ WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2003 12:01:46 AM ]
NEW DELHI: Even as the cellular industry today reiterated its decision to provide interconnection to limited mobility operators "only on fair and equitable terms”, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) has come down heavily on the public campaign by the cellular industry, which accused the regulator of bias and unfairness.
In a letter addressed to the director general of Cellular Operators' Association of India, Trai has not only rebutted the charges raised in the industry's open letter yesterday, but also promised to deal with defiance of the regulator's directive on interconnection "suitably, in terms of the existing licence conditions, laws and regulations”.
Asserting that "regulation does not happen by creating pressure through media or by trying to drum up public support”, Trai charged the cellular industry with seeking to exercise undue influence on matters that are due for decision by the regulator or the judicial process.
"The contents of the published open letter, to say the least, are one- sided and present only a partial picture,” says the letter from Trai. The letter also explains that its earlier directive "requires the cellular operators not to block calls selectively, in case of calls coming from other basic operators through already established interconnection links”.
Meanwhile, basic service providers, who also provide limited mobility using wireless in the local loop (WLL), are demanding punishment for the cellular industry including cancellation of the operating licences, terming the disconnection of interconnection to BSOs “arbitrary and illegal”. The licences as well as Trai regulations require them to provide interconnection, failing which they must face the law.
BSOs argue that cellular operators should stop objecting to the extent of mobility offered by WLL, if they wish to have no difference at all in the regulatory and licence terms. WLL-based mobility providers are currently barred from offering roaming across circles. The difference in licence and regulatory conditions, according to BSOs, is because there are differences in the mobility of the cellular and limited mobility phones as well as airtime charges permitted.
TRAI has explained the existence of airtime and access charges in cellular tariffs and the absence of access charges in the case of WLL-M services in terms of the two different pricing models employed in the two cases. For fixed line the world over, the model used is that of calling party paying (CPP) for use of all the networks that the call goes through. Another pricing model is that of the receiving party paying (RPP) for part or whole of the network usage involved in transmission of the call. There is no reason to privilege CPP over RPP or vice versa.
Whereas the cellular industry sees WLL-M service providers as its direct competitors who are spared access charges (the Rs 1.20 payable by cellular users for a call between cellular and fixed networks, over and above the airtime charge), TRAI refuses to concede this ground. It stoically continues to see WLL-M as an integral part of basic services where CPP is the pricing model applied, while treating cellular services as an entirely distinct type of service with a different pricing model.
TRAI also notes that it did not force bidding and it certainly is not responsible for the size of the bids which were made by the different cellular service license seekers based on their own assessment of the value of the license, while referring to the issue of cellular operators having paid Rs 9000 crore while WLL_M providers have paid none. TRAI points out that WLL-M providers have paid licence fees as part of their licence fee for basic services. While comparing the license fees, TRAI contends that "the two services are different and are governed by two different regimes.''
It later reiterates "the regulatory terms for the two need not be identical'', while replying to cellular industry's offer to match or better WLL tariffs subject to identical license conditions and regulatory terms.
economictimes.indiatimes.com
==========
LOL! |
