The Challenges Ahead

The National Telecom Policy 1999

has opened the Domestic Long Distance (DLD) service for competition from 1 January 2000.

It is a positive sign that the Group on Telecom has radically moved and gone ahead in

opening up the long distance telephony, though it was only obliged to review the situation

in 1999, the current year. This is a welcome exception in a sector where things usually

get delayed.

The next task is the smooth

implementation of the decision to open up the service. There lies a number of challenges

that need to be tackled before we can, actually, see multiple National Long Distance

Operators (NLDOs), as the policy calls them.

The first issue is the lack of

long-distance communication infrastructure. The ideal and cheapest medium for long

distance is optical fibre. However, the laying of optical fibre for long-distance

communication is a time-consuming task. Today, there is hardly any alternative to

DoT’s fibre infrastructure. Though there is much talk about Indian Railways fibre

links, they are far from adequate. Power Grid Corp. of India has just started and it will

take at least two-three years for it to have that actual infrastructure in place. These

are the only entities that have the right of way and hence can build infrastructure fast.

Though the policy talks of smooth

right-of-way clearance for operators, it will take some time before that becomes possible

on ground. The only alternate infrastructure that exists is the microwave links, built by

the cellular operators in most states. Alternate infrastructure is a pre-requisite for

flourishing competition in services.

The second issue is making the

private operators interested in national long-distance services. The proposal at present

is that they will have to share 60 percent of the revised revenues with the access

providers. That hardly makes it attractive.

The third issue is that the

networks are converging. ISPs are being allowed to build or lease

infrastructure—local, DLD, international. It is expected that data circuits will be

able to carry voice with equal ease and quality. Any national long-distance policy

specific to voice can only be an interim solution for a limited period, say three to five

years. In many countries, data operators are permitted to carry voice. This will

increasingly be a contentious issue. The ISP policy is silent on this aspect. To decide on

the national long distance in isolation from the ISP policy is not relevant in

today’s context.

The policy makers can, however,

kick start long-distance competition by at least permitting the intra-circle long distance

carriers to provide carrier-selection choice to their customers in the case of cellular

and circles where basic operators have been licensed. There are only a few countries which

now distinguish local and long-distance operators. Another step could be to recommend

interconnection between service providers across their areas of operation, since presently

it is an unnatural restriction.

There should be a level playing

field since the incumbent DoT has both local and long distance. It is required that there

be some separate entity for the long-distance operations of DoT, to reflect the cross

subsidy.

Also the terms and conditions for

the new operator in vacant cities should be decided before the long-distance is opened.

That will ensure that those conditions do not contradict the terms for national long

distance operators.

If these concern areas are not

addressed, the opening up of national long distance will be marked by more problems than

solutions. Implementation problems should not come in the way of good intent.