Removing the Bottleneck

Thoughtless regulations are preventing enterprises from efficiently using their

legitimately acquired business resources-the regulation on logical

partitioning of PBX is one such case

As

true as it is that change is the only constant, resisting change is a major

occupation of everybody in the world. In the world of telecom, IP (internet

protocol) technologies represent that change.

There had been

reluctance on part of the incumbents to go along with this change. Only after a

lot of consideration, for a few months last year, the DoT allowed Bharti, Tata,

Reliance, and BSNL to allow enterprises a physically converged but logically

partitioned telecom infrastructure or EPBX. This permission was to be given on a

case-by-case basis, to ensure that toll fraud (or toll bypass) was not committed

by the enterprises. Elated by this, many enterprises went ahead and built the

single, logically partitioned networks. Some like Unisys even went about

constructing the premises on the premise of a logically partitioned single

network.

Then came March 17,

2005, three-line communication from the DoT that ruled, “logical partitioning

of EPABX for termination of leased lines /PSTN/PLMN network is not permitted.”

Couple of months ago, the DoT relented a bit and allowed the other service

providers (OSP)-defined as applications providers and largely understood as

BPOs and call centers-to use a logically partitioned enterprise telecom

network for domestic and international operations. This had been pursued by

Nasscom, which was able to show the department that a physically converged but

logically partitioned telecom infrastructure is essential for the BPO line of

business.

CIOs in the

'other' industry now ask this facility to be available to them as well. SR

Balasubramanian, CIO of Hero Honda Motors says, “It should be opened for all

enterprises. If government fears loss of revenue, it can define rules and

penalties. Even otherwise, disallowing this facility in today's world of

convergence is an archaic measure.”

One logic for defining

the OSP, the way it is now, is that they need to terminate calls outside their

network for their revenue generating operations. But even that criterion can

cover many more industry segments, which are however denied this facility.

According to the amended terms and conditions for OSP (issues in November 2005),

the categories are: tele-banking, tele-medicine, tele-education, tele-trading,

e-commerce, call center, and network operation center. Calls to the DoT about

clarifications are returned with a square reply, “BPOs only.”

Anil Porter, head,

networks and infrastructure, Calleo Technologies, says, “A lot of the

enterprises segments do not have BPO for their field of operations. Hence, they

are left to support themselves on their own.” His company is into GDS (global

distribution system). It has to set up its own network and does not fall clearly

into an OSP category listed above. Porter adds, that since customer support is

not viewed as a revenue-generating activity by the government, his company is

left to service a global clientele, powered with the state-of-the-art equipment,

but with millstone-like regulations.

The Comedy...



...or it is the tragedy?





While a service provider can give PSTN and the Internet over the same line, the

enterprise has to depend on a POTS for terminating the call, the PC for

terminating the data, and a truckload of Tiger balm to terminate the headache

and continue with the absurdity, because, in India you cannot terminate PSTN and

Internet circuits on the same machine.

Commenting on forced

separation of Internet circuit and the TDM circuit, Porter adds, “Today the

enterprise is using two sets of equipment to use both these services, and

separate equipment are used for this, hence its high time this restriction is

taken off and enterprises are allowed to terminate local TDM and Internet

circuits on the same box and have logical partitioning enabled.”

What Porter may not

know is that the two networks are still used surreptitiously by many

organizations. All that is needed is a lowly patch cord, and the call over

leased lines is patched to the PSTN.

It has already been

argued that for prevention of toll fraud, logical partitioning is a better way

of separating the two networks. With a single network in place, there would be

no patch cords and if any patch-ups are attempted, there will be a record of it

in the system. The system administrators as well as the regulators can use to

keep in check this toll fraud. Currently, there is no way of checking it.

But the enterprise

today does not need to commit fraud.  It

has legal alternative ways of biting the cherry of cheap calls. It can subscribe

to the many 'on-net' calling plans-enabling it to call customers in the

same network almost without a charge and sometimes without any charge.

And in trying to

prevent the fraud that nobody needs to commit, the efficient use of enterprise

resources and the development of a converged network in the country are both

being prevented.

Just Who Is Being

Protected?



It is commonly alleged that the regulations sometimes are tweaked to suit

the PSUs. But not in this case. In March 2005, when logical partitioning was

disallowed, even BSNL was permitting its customers to implement logically

partitioned PBXs, along with Bharti, Tata, and Reliance. Over the months, with

growth in network, especially the MPLS network, all service providers including

the PSUs are today in a position to offer, and profit from, enterprise's use

of converged offerings.

The equipment vendors

are also in a position to benefit. Their loss of PBX box business can be

compensated with the new lines of business that will come up. Dinesh Sehgal,

national marketing manager, convergence solutions, Avaya GlobalConnect, says,

“I may not be able to sell duplicate hardware, but I will be selling more and

more applications on the same platform, such as enterprise-wide mobility. The

nature of business will change. Sale of applications will become a new line of

business.”

Now Is Too Late Already





Sehgal admits that while the upfront cost of a logical partitioning-enabled PBX

may be high, customers are going for it on the basis of TCO and RoI

calculations. In any case, the per port cost of IP equipment is coming down

drastically. Two years back, there was a huge difference between the IP-based

and a non-IP based PBXs. And, in 2005, IP shipments overtook TDM shipments in

the US. And going by F&S figures, this transition should happen in India

during 2006.

With such a large

deployment of IP-enabled infrastructure, the only hurdle that will remain in the

way of emergence of converged networks will be the regulatory hurdles.

In the IP age, when

network intelligence has shifted to the edge, the service provider does not need

to make any major alterations or additions to its network to enable the whole

host of telecom services. The services are hosted on the CPE, and the network is

really just a bit-pipe for carrying the data.

What Will It Take?



In the spirit of the new year, and also as the new telecom policy is out

anytime soon, let the enterprises be. They need to be allowed to choose their

own communications setup. Why stay with the restriction that they terminate only

certain types of circuits on certain types of CPE? The enterprise is using the

resources from authorized service providers only, efficient use of a resource

should be the enterprise's responsibility, and the government should keep away

from micro-management. If I can check my email over a BlackBerry, why not over a

fixed line, and why can't I use my PC or a laptop to answer my call while I

read the email?

Nobody objects to the

levies being imposed on telecom services, but there is an urgent need for their

simplification in this year's budget. In an age when the government is

otherwise promoting a simplification of the tax structure, the telecom industry

not only pays a plethora of taxes but has to calculate them in the most

complicated of ways.

The ADC, which was

supposed to pass away in 2005, is here to stay till 2008 at least. Fair enough.

The government has social obligations that must take precedence over many other

issues. But why does this ADC have to be calculated on a call-by-call basis.

Whatever amount has to be collected from the industry, can be collected on the

basis of the revenue. A hike in license fee, in lieu of the ADC, would be far

more efficient and hassle free.

Alok Singh 




aloksi@cybermedia.co.in