Squeezing The ISPs?

When the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) came out with the invitation to private companies for application to obtain licences to
operate voice mail/audiotex/unified messaging services, it just did not think that a dust storm was about to be kicked up. But that was exactly what happened! And the swiftness and force with which the ISP Association of India (ISPAI) reacted even surprised the now unshakable DoT. The association without wasting any time filed a case with the Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) against the department accusing it of "cutting short the scope of services already provided in the ISP policy". 

But why such a brouhaha over a tiny matter such as the stray licencing of UMS? That it was certainly not considered something that was significant is evident by the manner in which the entire licence agreement and guidelines for it was drafted. It quite beats anybody how the department can come out with such a shoddy guideline draft in which, among others, the most convoluted proposal is that of giving separate licences for separate Short Distance Calling Areas (SDCAs). What if someone decided to have presence in a dozen major cities. Why should he be made to run around for a dozen licences whereas a simple provision for a countrywide licence could have easily resolved the issue? 

However, coming back to the objection of the ISPs, they seem to be striking at the very basis of the licence. First, why should they go in for a separate licence for services that seem to be the logical extensions of the dial-up/content services that they already provided and does not take much investment and effort to provide with existing infrastructure facilities? They point out that UMS is a content service for ISPs and the policy already allows such services. Second, even if there was to be licencing for entry of new players for voicemail/audiotex/UMS services, the ISPs argue that they should not have been made to shell out the bank guarantee and the other fees once again, as they had already paid up guarantees for the operation of Internet services. In both the two arguments, the industry’s case is made stronger by what TRAI has noted in its recommendations to DoT’s reference letter asking for recommendations on these services. An excerpt of the draft says, "Voice Mail and ‘On line data base interactive services’ on the Internet platform are both identical Content Services being provided through a website which is a computer connected to the network. Govt. has already issued liberal guidelines for the Internet. As per the internet policy, pure Content Services are not to be licensed at all. The Authority is of the view that for all kinds of content services i.e., whether they are provided on the Internet or other Public Network platforms such as PSTN/PLMN etc., identical policy should be followed" ... A forward looking TRAI giving a positive recommendation.

Why then did DoT disregard everything and come out with a final draft that was not favourable to the ISPs? According to the industry, DoT is supposed to at least give a reason for the rejection of TRAI’s recommendations. But, it did not. According to the ISPs, the entire process of coming out with this particular licence was not transparent from start. TRAI did not even call for an open house discussion–thus providing no avenue for the industry to give its suggestions. 

According to DoT, the New Telecom Policy (NTP) 99 has defined Cellular Mobile Telephone Service Providers, Fixed Service Providers, Cable Service Providers as Access Providers. And therefore Voice Mail/Audiotex/Unified Messaging Service can be provided as a Value Added Service by these service providers over their network without taking an additional licence. If so, why leave out the ISPs. It’s quite clear that UMS is as much a Value Added Service for them as any of the above Access Providers. The government agency could argue that ISPs does not fall under the ambit of access providers and hence must take up this additional licence. But this argument is foolhardy and does not stand as it is clear Internet services is an access services in addition to whatever content is provided via the medium of Internet. So what if NTP 99 forgot to mention ISPs? The nascent sector must not be made to suffer for a simple error such as that. 

There is probably no alternative with the honourable TDSAT than to direct DoT to take a relook at this particular policy and make the necessary changes. Anything other than this will go ahead to prove the belief of ISPs that parties with vested interests within the DoT is playing with loopholes in policies such as NTP 99 to kill the private ISPs. And loopholes there are many. For instance, are ISPs not fixed service providers? Now that fixed service providers can provide limited mobility, can they still be regarded as fixed in true sense?

Nareshchandra Laishram