REGULATION: The Frail TRAI(L)

Many
a noble intentions and great ideas have withered away
prematurely. The now defunct TRAI was an idea necessitated by
rapidly changing telecom landscape in the country. It might not
have been great per se, but it was definitely the need of the
hour. And when it announced its first judgement against the
hitherto untouchable DoT, there was jubilation in the entire
industry. It was perceived to be the harbinger of a level
playing field, promoter of fair competition, and protector of
consumer interests.

The jubilation was,
however, short-lived. The halo created around the newly found
messiah was dimmed and lost in the war of egos of the DoT and
the TRAI.

Too Much or
Too Little?

Certain things went wrong with what was essentially a
progressive step. One, the model chosen for TRAI had some
inherent structural deficiencies. In the erstwhile model, TRAI
was vested with recommendatory and some judiciary powers.
Though, the ultimate decision on the recommendations was that of
the government, this duality of powers did not go well with
basic tenets of a democratic process. In hindsight it appears
doubtful whether anyone ever really understood its exact
jurisdiction, which could at best be described as vague. While
DoT "cried" too much, TRAI "tried" too much.
This vagueness led to the unfortunate involvement of the High
Court in what should have been a purely commercial process. It
became a classic case of adjudicating the adjudicator and
regulating the regulator. Not only were the courts unnecessarily
dragged into an unwanted arena, it sent a negative signal to
international observers. The credibility of the entire
liberalization process suffered a setback. And all because of
shortsightedness of the framers of the TRAI charter.
Fortunately, this has been rectified in the Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India (TRAI) Amendment Ordinance 2000. The
Ordinance has clearly separated the two functions of
recommendation and dispute settlement. The judiciary has also
been avoided the extra burden by making the Supreme Court the
only appellate body for the decisions of the Telecom Dispute
Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

 

Sheer Cosmetics
Seldom Work

But structural deficiencies were never the major issue. These
could be corrected with a simple policy decision (as has been
done ultimately) as and when desired. What actually spelt the
doom of TRAI had more to do with attitudes–both on the part of
the DoT as well as the TRAI. And attitudes are hard to change.

By its very structuring,
DoT has been nourished with a particular psyche. The spoilsport
that it is playing are all symptoms of that monopolistic psyche
which has been there for decades. And the symptoms have been all
too evident ever since the great liberalization wave swept the
Indian telecommunication shores in 1994. In their pursuit of
opening the telecom industry to competition they might have
ignored the "very basic tenet of change", i.e., every
change (social/economic/political) to be enduring and worthwhile
must accompany an attitudinal change.There is no doubt that for
the telecom liberalization to be complete and effective, the DoT
had to be restructured, revamped, and recast. But it had to be a
holistic revamp and not mere cosmetics. Somehow, the attitudinal
was ignored and the former was over exaggerated. Whatever change
was sought appeared to be a "forced" one from
"outside". All the structural revamps might have been
done with the logic that attitudinal changes would follow as a
natural corollary.

Perhaps too much was taken
away from DoT–and too suddenly. "Shock therapies"
are not best suited in all cases. The aim should not have been
to make it fall flat on its face but to help it stand firmly on
its feet in the changed circumstances. After all, despite what
has been often said, DoT has performed a decent job all these
decades considering the overall environment. Attitudinal change
process is long and latent. One has to give enough time before
the results can be seen.

The establishment of DTS
as the service branch will ultimately be a lesson in corporate
attitudes for the DoT.

On Trial

A new regulator has been proposed. And the hope, the
expectations, the hype, the promises, and apparently, even the
determination to make it worthwhile is there once again. As of
now, it does appear that the structural deficiencies have been
rectified. What will be on trial again are the attitudes of the
new bodies.