To: arun gera who wrote (31709 ) 1/25/2003 5:03:05 PM From: John Biddle Read Replies (1) | Respond to Wow, great post, thanks. It agrees with my take so it must be accurate<g>.Technologies tested included Cordect technology and CDMA WLL. But the technologies were not seriously implemented. Reliance may have rigged the WLL game. CDMA WLL solution uses spectrum more efficiently. So only small portions of the spectrum were awarded to WLL nationwide. That must have discouraged the GSM cellular providers to compete for those licenses. As a result, the CDMA providers are Number 1 (Reliance) and Number 2 (Tata Teleservices) in WLL coverage. The GSM cellular providers are protesting the terms of WLL, while they had full access to apply for the WLL spectrum under the terms that were laid out for it. As for paying the WLL players for the interconnect, and not getting paid by them for the interconnect, that was always the case with the Govt. controlled Basic Service providers. Of course that was not an issue before, because every cellular provider needed to get that access without which they could not reach the installed base of wireline phones. Reliance does not care. In the long term it cannot be held to ransom. It is ready to pay extra for WLL spectrum as long as it allows Relaiance to be a national player. When the CDMA players have 5 million customers by next year, they will have much better negotiating power with fragmented GSM providers. Say, 2.5 million subscriber strong Reliance can individually negotiate with 1 million subscriber strong GSM provider. So in each market it can shake down the weaker GSM player to negotiate with it and will not be held to ransom.
