Four years ago, mobile operators accepted increased competition after the
government agreed to share their business risk. A forward-looking National
Telecom Policy 1999 allocated licenses by services and not by technology. But
the WLL (M) service now available to basic telecom operators can hardly be
distinguished from mobile services.
This has been the cause of rising rift between the GSM and CDMA operators.
The fight reached alarming proportions soon after the soft launch Reliance’s
India Mobile services. In a free-for-all, operators resorted to denial of
interconnect to each other, only to compound the woes of the bewildered
customer.
Role
of the Regulator
According to the International Telecommunication Union’s colloquium on
regulators, interconnect issues arise soon after the initial phase of
deregulation, when newer players have to route traffic through established once
monopolistic incumbents. Since late entrants are usually competitors with newer
technologies and better customer service attitudes they are naturally perceived
as threats. Incumbents therefore seldom cooperate with them. Since the primary
reason for deregulation is to foster competition, the regulator has to step in
ensuring a level playing field.
Consulting firm Gartner Research has a model that describes the
transformation that occurs in deregulated telecom economies. Soon after
deregulation–as it happened in our country during 1994-95–a plethora of
players rushes in, representing an expansionistic phase. As operators’
business models develop, competition, shakeout, and consolidation are witnessed.
Tariffs fall and volumes surge. Finally, there is restructuring amongst a few
players, when economies of scale allow prices to fall further and traffic to
soar almost exponentially. According to Geoff Johnson, research director,
"The number of years after deregulation taken to reach the restructuring
phase depends on the effectiveness of the regulator". The stronger it is,
shorter is the time for a country to reach telecom maturity, usually exhibited
among other things by pure revenue sharing interconnect agreements based on cost
plus operations. If the regulator is weak, this duration gets protracted and
painful as incumbents resist change and try to maintain status quo.
"Interconnection is tougher and longer than expected. But all countries
have to go through this", he points out. The intermediate years are tough
since there are large amounts of revenue, huge traffic changes as well as
personalities involved. A weak regulator unable to help build interconnect
agreements, creates business frustration amongst the newer players who witness
poor or no returns on investment.
|
What Causes Conflict?
The face-off in the first half of January this year, between mobile
operators, the telecom regulator, private basic telecom operators and incumbents
stems from exactly these feelings of business frustration. The root cause again–one-sided
interconnect terms built into revenue sharing agreements between basic and
mobile operators. Right since 1995, when mobile and basic licenses were first
issued, an access charge has existed for a mobile subscriber call terminating in
a basic operator’s and now also a WLL (M) network.
The origin of this access charge lies in the tariff structure of incumbents
BSNL and MTNL, which has been calculated on the basis of cross subsidy. Revenues
from long-distance calls pay for local calls. Revenues from higher usage owners
subsidize the costs of lower usage owners. Working on a below-cost model for
intra-circle traffic, MTNL and BSNL had no option but to recover costs of
interconnecting with mobile operators from the mobile operators themselves,
since it could not differentially increase tariffs for its own subscribers.
Mobile operators have, since 1995, therefore been stuck with both a ‘calling
party pays’ and a ‘receiving party pays’ situation, a peculiar situation
present only in this country.
Things would have continued like that, but for the introduction of WLL (M)
services. Department of Telecom had to create the service as an additional sop
so as to keep the business interests of private basic telecom players alive. S
Ramakrishnan, managing director, Tata Teleservices, says, "Limited mobility
is an additional business opportunity given to make the basic service license
viable." According to him, if this ‘abnormal concession’ had not been
made, only MTNL and BSNL would be around today.
While DoT created WLL (M), TRAI was supposed to implement a suitable
interconnect and revenue sharing arrangement among all concerned operators. The
ITU clearly specifies that the national regulator should help build these
agreements, with minimal involvement. In essence, interconnect terms can also be
brokered among the players themselves.
In the Corner
2001 onwards, after the first WLL (M) networks were rolled out by Tata
Teleservices in Andhra Pradesh, interconnect agreements between private basic
and mobile operators have been almost on an ad hoc basis. While private mobile
operators were transferring the Rs 1.20 access charge to them less their
collection fees, it is believed that private basic telecom operators were also
sharing a nominal access fee with them, especially for calls originating from
their WLL (M) networks. In the case of incumbents BSNL and MTNL, no such
reciprocal sharing was taking place. But the whole arrangement has remained very
fluid and sporadic with TRAI doing little to move towards cost based revenue
sharing agreements. While TRAI did present its reference interconnect offer,
mobile operators dismissed it as a "meaningless piece of document" and
"a menu with no price list".
Moreover, in order to make handover of traffic between operators smooth,
establishing optimal points of interconnection is necessary. This is also a key
role that the regulator has to play, according to ITU guidelines. Again, while
mobile operators have complained to TRAI about incumbents dragging their feet on
this issue, the regulator has done little to get things underway. In a recently
published article, former CMD of MTNL, S Rajagopalan writes, "TRAI does not
appear to be independent and is not discharging its functions well. There is
nobody the private operators can go to for remedy; they can be called silent
sufferers."
In early January this year, as the story goes, TRAI started putting pressure
on mobile operators to give faster access to Tata Teleservices’ WLL-M roll out
in Delhi and elsewhere. "We were in the middle of a commercial dispute and
somebody comes in and says you interconnect first and settle terms later,"
a mobile operator says.
TRAI’s insistence to provide interconnection first and draw up terms later
was in sharp contrast with the practice adopted by the incumbents. Mobile
operators point out that BSNL took almost 12 months to provide them
interconnectivity across the country.
"It has never been an issue to interconnect with WLL, but all we want is
a fair termination charge," a mobile operator points out.
TRAI’s recent announcement is a step in the right direction, but not
necessarily the right step. Kobita Desai, Gartner’s senior telecom analyst in
the country, says, "There is no real logic for an access charge since no
business model can absorb it." The only way forward is therefore complete
elimination of the access charge. Gartner’s recommendation is to progress
towards cost-based, revenue-sharing interconnect agreements, and this can only
be facilitated by the regulator.
Swings Must Be Overcome
Rajagopalan in his article contrasts the old and the new TRAI, which is now
soft towards incumbents as a backlash of its earlier form. What was inevitable
to the earlier TRAI has only been postponed. It is only a matter of time before
market pressures again push the present TRAI, DoT and the incumbents into a more
realistic acceptance of the present business dynamics.
In fact, though forgotten by many, the first real interconnect agreements
were put forward by the previous TRAI as early as 1998-99. These were outright
rejected by DoT since they jeopardized the revenue models of both BSNL and MTNL.
TRAI was then taken to court by MTNL for overstepping its mandate. The
regulatory body was dismantled, and then reconstituted.
Probably, it’s time for Round 2.
Arun Shankar former executive editor Dataquest
Events That Lead to TRAI’s Revision of Basic Telecom Tariffs...
October 2002
BSNL and MTNL challenge TRAI’s order directing them to publish their reference
interconnect offer and appeal to TDSAT. Their appeal is accepted
November
l Mobile operators
announce their intention to approach TDSAT objecting to Reliance’s offer of
unlimited mobility with their WLL-m CDMA services. COAI points out multiple
subscription services are only possible by using mobile switching centers not
allowed for WLL-m services
l
Soli Sorabjee representing the Union of India in the limited mobility case
pending before the Supreme Court, submits that cellular operators are repeatedly
using the process of court to delay the rollout of WLL services
December
l Reliance Infocomm
starts announcing details of its WLL-m services. Package deal includes Rs 14,400
for 400 minutes of outgoing airtime, incoming free, Rs 6,600 for handset, lock
in for 3 years; or Rs 500 for 400 minutes per month. TRAI objects to call
forwarding facility
l
Tata Teleservices rolls out its services in Delhi. Begins to face rough weather
with cellular operators on interconnect who refuse to formalize contracts with
it. With Reliance’s rollout round the corner it’s no more a whimsical game
l
Supreme Court asks TDSAT to rework its previous order of April 2002, ensuring a
level playing field between WLL-m and cellular operators
l
DoT sends a communication to TRAI inviting its opinion on allowing an increase
in the number of cellular operators
3 January 2003
l Mobile operators react
to Reliance’s tariff announcements by slashing cell-to-cell long distance
rates from Rs 9 per minute to Rs 3 per minute
l
Facing rough weather from mobile operators who now insist on reciprocal access
charges, WLL operators start routing their traffic through MTNL and BSNL
networks
8 January
l Facing increasing
pressure from Tata Teleservices and Reliance Infocomm, the Ministry of
Communication issues a directive to TRAI to solve the interconnection issue
between mobile and basic operators
l
BSNL, MTNL react to mobile operator announcements by slashing cell-to-cell long
distance rates to Rs 2.90 per minute
9 January
TRAI issues a directive to mobile operators asking them not to block calls
originating from WLL operators routed via MTNL and BSNL
14 January
Mobile operators declare war on TRAI. Accuse it of bias in favor of WLL
operators and of maintaining a silence on their pleas for transparent and fair
treatment
16 January
TRAI issues show cause notices to mobile operators for defying its directive to
provide immediate interconnectivity to WLL operators. Gives them 72 hours to
explain the reasons for defying its authority. MTNL and BSNL support TRAI and
reciprocate by blocking calls from mobile operators on their networks
17 January
l Mobile operators
approach TDSAT objecting to the show cause notices issued by TRAI to them and
threats by MTNL and BSNL to block traffic through their networks
20 January
l Mobile operators meet
Pramod Mahajan, the then Minister for Communication on his invitation and brief
him on the issues of cost based interconnection. A temporary truce is made with
WLL operators on the conditional acceptance that the interconnect issue would be
resolved
l
The mobile industry denies that any interconnect agreement has been signed with
Reliance Infocomm, contrary to reports appearing in the press
22 January
l MS Verma, chairman,
TRAI, blasts mobile operators for putting pressure on the regulator and trying
to influence judicial proceedings
l
Mobile operators announce all mobile-to-mobile incoming traffic to be free,
taking the first step towards moving to ‘calling party pays’ tariff
structure
26 January
TRAI removes subsidies on local call tariffs for basic telecom operators as a
first step towards moving to a cost based structure in this area. Also announces
reciprocal access charges between basic, WLL and mobile services