<

When Telecom & IT babus just don’t get the Market

For all who go to town declaring that India has an entrepreneur-friendly, liberalized Telecom sector, here’s a dampener. TRAI’s recommendations on “ Review of Internet Services“, a report dated May 10th 2007, show just how much (or little) babus in the ministry understand the Internet. We’re light-years away from a truly liberal Telecom policy, because the DoT hasn’t even grasped the concept of creating a free, healthy market.

After having read through the report, I think I have a better understanding of what ails the DoT (and by extension, most ministries at the Center and the states). The Telecom ministry thinks it has to juggle different objectives which, in its view, are mutually incompatible. Therefore, to achieve all of these objectives, each stakeholder has to compromise to some degree. In reality, though, these objectives are _not_ incompatible, unnecessary compromised are made, and it results in a policy full of caveats, which ends up pleasing no one.

There are plenty of examples of these misplaced assumptions in the report. To demonstrate, here are a few sentences from the voluminous, bloated 126-page report, with my comments inline, in italics.

Under the “Scope of ISP license” section:

Web hosting by certain foreign companies within Indian domain who have significant market share in global market should form part of our developmental agenda and necessary policies to encourage such web hosting need to be evolved.

How in the world can “foreign companies” with “significant market share” hosting their data here going to help our “developmental agenda”?!

Strong views were expressed to permit IPTV under ambit of ISP license as it has potential to drive market, easy to provide using ISP backbone and can encourage Internet penetration .

So is this – “encouraging Internet penetration” – going to be the compass by which permission for other services will be granted in the future? What about TV on mobile phones? This is an extremely niche market, but does not in any way increase Internet penetration. Will this be allowed then?

Under the “Grey Market Operations” (?!) section:

Some entities located abroad are offering unauthorized Internet telephony services in our country for making calls to and from abroad on Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) ….The licensing, legal and technological issues arising from such services need to be urgently addressed by DoT.

Some companies are also providing Software through their websites that enables the user to have free chat with anyone using the similar software anywhere in the world while logged on to the server of such service providers. Software can be downloaded free of charge from their website.

The Internet telephony call through such unregistered entities using PCs/IP access devices in India to landline or mobile phones abroad and vice versa result in a revenue loss to the government . Such calls can escape the eyes of law enforcement agencies also.

Here is a classic case of the DoT’s misplaced priorities. Is the objective of TRAI to “increase Internet penetration” and ensure that the Indian consumer gets the best and cheapest service, or is it to ensure that the Government – comprising the DoT, BSNL and MTNL – earn the maximum possible revenue? The DoT’s most glaring – even criminal – policy failure is to disallow such an interconnect. If the DoT has to stifle innovation and consumer benefit in favor of PSU revenues, we must then question the very reason for the existence of these PSUs. Indeed, in an article I wrote back in December 2005,

If the state is not running telecom companies for “social service”, or it put it more correctly, “social benefit”, then what are they running it for? If profit is the only motive, then the company should be privatized, fully, and right away. Think about it: If there is no “larger good” for running BSNL and MTNL, their motives are just like any other private company. Why, then, should they be at such a huge advantage compared to a private player?

By escaping regulatory levies such unlicensed foreign entities are able to provide cheaper services to lure the subscribers. The Authority is aware that large number of Indians are availing such services. Stopping access to such services is technically difficult. There is serious revenue implication for the government. DoT may address this development on priority. One of the possible options could be to ask such companies to register in India, seek permission from DoT and host their website in India.

Again, the ridiculous premise that “hosting their website in India” is going to guarantee compliance! Besides, why should “cheap services” have such negative connotations as to invite use of the term “lure the subscribers”? And yes, the issue of “serious revenue implication for the Government” raises its ugly head again.

Under the “Revamping and Restructuring of Internet Services” section:

It is extremely important to regularly analyse the business data of the operational ISPs to ensure that the licensed ISPs are contributing to the growth of Internet and engage in legitimate business.

What is “legitimate” and “illegitimate” business? What “business data” will help identify such legitimacy? Should ISPs contribute to the “growth of Internet”? What if an ISP grows in an area only by managing to convert users of competing ISPs to its services? It has been a resounding success, but has not resulted in a single extra subscriber. Is that legal or illegal?

The Authority therefore favours a uniform FDI cap /equity of 74% across all telecom licenses. ISPs who have more than 74% FDI cap /equity at present shall be required to bring down their FDI cap/ equity to 74% within two years.

What is the magic number of 74% supposed to signify? Why not 65%? Why not 84%? As long as the foreign entity has a controlling stake in a firm, any additional restrictions on its holding are meaningless. If 50% FDI is allowed, why not 100%? In fact, what is any restriction at all on FDI going to achieve in a field like telecom?

Annexure II – Recommendations of “stakeholders”:

Stakeholders also felt that the ISP licensing should only be linked with the vanilla bandwidth provisioning whereas all other services based on video & voice applications, www-hosted applications should be freed from licensing. It was also stressed upon that in a multi-tasking, multi-function, convergent nature of Internet; it would be illogical to consider regulating isolated applications.

Ah. Finally something which makes sense. But…

However, it does not appear possible to expand the scope of ISP license to cover all services as it will infringe on the rights granted to ILD/NLD/ Access Providers. Therefore, for the ISPs to move up the value chain, there is no option but to obtain one or more licenses as per the services planned to be offered by them.

There – senseless restrictions again. The same issues with interfacing with PSTN that we dealt with earlier.

Stakeholder commented that since Skype / Google type service providers are not licensed to provide such services in India without having facility for lawful interception, therefore, the vigilance and monitoring efforts are required to be beefed up, as these applications not only bypass the laws and regulations of the land, but also pose a threat to security. As such these services should be blocked.

I have nothing to comment on this, except that I would dearly like to know who this particular “stakeholder” is, and that I’d like to hear his views on how Google Talk poses a “threat to security”.

Finally, the US has the most liberal laws I’ve seen:

In US, ISPs do not require license or authorization. Instead, e-mail, data and Internet services are treated as “information services,” and ISPs are permitted to operate unfettered in a competitive and free market, subject only, with a few limited exceptions, to general business laws.

Ah, this is an entrepreneur-friendly policy. Here is a Government that believes in leaving anyone who wishes to offer services “operate unfettered”, and step back from the scene, as opposed to one that gets involved in grand-scale centralized planning to the extent of mandating the “target for broadband users in India” in a particular year!


May 17, 2007 ·  Post to Twitter ·  Email this ·  Editorials, Internet, Policy, Telecom, india ·  Leave a Comment


You might also be interested reading:

Post your comment