Telecom Tariff Hike 2026: महँगा Internet, Call Drops और कमजोर Consumer Protection — सरकार और TRAI की जवाबदेही कहाँ है?
Subtitle: Telecom Operators की Pricing Power बनाम Consumer Rights | Net Neutrality, Digital India और भारत की Digital Economy का भविष्य
World Engineer | India • Policy • Technology • Economy • Engineering • Global Lessons
Tagline: विचार से समाधान तक | नीति से प्रभाव तक | Building a Better India
Article Updated: 25 October 2026
1. Latest News: दिसंबर 2026 में Mobile Tariff 15% तक बढ़ने की संभावना?
23 October 2026 को प्रकाशित Financial Express की रिपोर्ट के अनुसार, Ambit Capital को दिसंबर 2026 में भारतीय telecom operators द्वारा लगभग 15% tariff hike किए जाने की उम्मीद है। यह analyst forecast है, सरकार या सभी telecom operators की ओर से घोषित और confirmed price increase नहीं। https://www.financialexpress.com/market/telecom-tariff-hike-ahead-ambit-expects-15-price-increase-in-december-picks-bharti-airtel-4367960/
रिपोर्ट में Bharti Airtel को sector की प्रमुख पसंद बताया गया है। Telecom industry में Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) बढ़ाने, network investment और sustainable returns को tariff increase के संभावित कारणों में गिना जा रहा है।
लेकिन इस खबर से एक बड़ा public-policy question उठता है:
अगर mobile recharge महँगा होता है, तो क्या consumer को उसी अनुपात में बेहतर voice quality, reliable internet speed, transparent billing और faster grievance redressal भी मिलेगा?
Telecom operators को अपने network में investment करने और उचित commercial returns कमाने का अधिकार है। लेकिन consumers को भी ऐसी service मिलनी चाहिए जिसके लिए वे भुगतान करते हैं।
Price increase की संभावना के साथ Service Quality की जवाबदेही पर भी सार्वजनिक चर्चा होनी चाहिए।
एक उदाहरण: 15% tariff hike का consumer पर असर
नीचे केवल समझाने के लिए उदाहरण दिया गया है, किसी operator के घोषित नए tariff का दावा नहीं है।
| Existing monthly-equivalent cost | 15% increase के बाद | अतिरिक्त खर्च |
|---|---|---|
| ₹300 | ₹345 | ₹45 |
| ₹500 | ₹575 | ₹75 |
| ₹1,000 | ₹1,150 | ₹150 |
यदि किसी परिवार के चार सदस्यों के mobile plans की कुल monthly-equivalent cost ₹1,200 है, तो 15% की वृद्धि पर खर्च ₹1,380 हो जाएगा। यानी ₹180 अतिरिक्त प्रति माह या ₹2,160 सालाना।
वास्तविक असर recharge validity, plan structure और लागू tariff पर निर्भर करेगा।
2. भारत के Telecom Sector पर सरकार का कितना Control है?
भारत का telecom sector पूरी तरह free-market system नहीं है। यह एक regulated industry है, जहाँ private companies commercial decisions लेती हैं, लेकिन spectrum, licensing, network security और service quality से जुड़े नियम सरकारी व्यवस्था के अंतर्गत आते हैं।
मुख्य संस्थाएँ:
Department of Telecommunications (DoT)
- Telecom policy और licensing framework.
- Spectrum allocation और संबंधित सरकारी प्रक्रियाएँ.
- National telecom infrastructure तथा security-related policy.
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)
- Telecom tariffs से जुड़े regulatory framework.
- Quality of Service (QoS) standards.
- Consumer protection और billing-related regulations.
- Net neutrality तथा fair access से संबंधित regulatory measures.
TRAI की आधिकारिक वेबसाइट पर Quality of Service Regulations 2024, Telecom Consumers Protection Regulations और अन्य लागू regulations उपलब्ध हैं।
Reference: https://www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/consolidated-regulations/telecom
इसलिए सवाल यह नहीं है कि सरकार को हर mobile plan की कीमत स्वयं तय करनी चाहिए या नहीं। असली सवाल है:
क्या regulatory framework consumers को खराब service, unfair billing और लगातार होने वाली परेशानी से पर्याप्त सुरक्षा देता है?
3. Call Drop: क्या Mobile Recharge का पैसा केवल Connectivity के वादे के लिए है?
Call drop एक ऐसी समस्या है जिसका असर आम नागरिक, professionals, students, small businesses, hospitals, banks और emergency communication पर पड़ सकता है।
दिल्ली-NCR जैसे urban areas में भी users को कभी-कभी indoor coverage, network congestion, weak signal या अचानक call disconnect होने की समस्या का सामना करना पड़ता है।
हालाँकि, किसी एक व्यक्ति के अनुभव से यह निष्कर्ष नहीं निकाला जा सकता कि सभी operators या पूरे भारत में service quality खराब है। इसके लिए location-wise और operator-wise verified data आवश्यक है।
Call drops के संभावित कारण
- Network congestion: एक क्षेत्र में network demand उपलब्ध capacity से अधिक होना।
- Indoor coverage: Buildings, basements, lifts और अन्य संरचनाओं के कारण signal कमजोर होना।
- Insufficient network capacity: स्थानीय demand के अनुसार infrastructure या spectrum capacity का अपर्याप्त होना।
- Handover failure: चलते वाहन या यात्रा के दौरान एक cell tower से दूसरे tower पर connection transfer होने में समस्या।
- Technical faults: Network equipment, power supply, software या backhaul connectivity में खराबी।
- Geographical limitations: Remote areas, पहाड़ी क्षेत्र और कम आबादी वाले स्थानों पर connectivity की चुनौती।
TRAI को क्या करना चाहिए?
TRAI को मौजूदा QoS framework के प्रभावी implementation पर ध्यान देना चाहिए।
- Operator-wise और location-wise service quality data को अधिक accessible बनाना।
- बार-बार खराब service देने वाले क्षेत्रों की पहचान करना।
- निर्धारित standards के उल्लंघन पर applicable regulatory action लेना।
- Complaint resolution और restoration time की निगरानी करना।
- Consumers को शिकायत की स्थिति और समाधान की जानकारी उपलब्ध कराना।
महत्वपूर्ण अंतर: Call drop होने का हर individual incident अपने-आप में regulatory violation साबित नहीं करता। कार्रवाई लागू standards, measurement methodology, evidence और निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के आधार पर होनी चाहिए।
4. Call Drop Penalty: क्या हर Consumer को Compensation मिलना चाहिए?
यह एक महत्वपूर्ण policy proposal है।
यदि कोई consumer लगातार service failure का सामना करता है, तो उसे केवल customer-care ticket number देकर छोड़ देना पर्याप्त नहीं होना चाहिए।
लेकिन compensation का तरीका ऐसा होना चाहिए जो वास्तविक service failure को पहचान सके, legitimate technical exceptions को ध्यान में रखे और operators को network सुधारने के लिए प्रेरित करे।
World Engineer Proposal: Telecom Service Accountability Framework
नीचे दिए गए सुझाव proposed reforms हैं, मौजूदा लागू नियमों का विवरण नहीं।
Proposal 1: Repeated Call Drop Protection
यदि किसी subscriber को निर्धारित समय में बार-बार verified call drops का सामना करना पड़ता है, तो operator को:
- Network issue की जाँच करनी चाहिए।
- Complaint का trackable reference देना चाहिए।
- निर्धारित समय में resolution या स्पष्ट technical explanation देना चाहिए।
- पात्र मामलों में automatic service credit या compensation देना चाहिए।
Proposal 2: Automatic Compensation Mechanism
TRAI एक transparent compensation framework पर विचार कर सकता है जिसमें लगातार प्रमाणित service failure के लिए eligible consumers को बिना बार-बार आवेदन किए service credit मिल सके।
Compensation की राशि और eligibility के लिए technical feasibility, consumer impact तथा operators की compliance लागत पर public consultation आवश्यक होगी।
Proposal 3: Regulatory Penalties
जहाँ लागू QoS requirements का उल्लंघन साबित हो, वहाँ नियमों के अनुसार penalty या अन्य corrective action लिया जाना चाहिए।
Regulatory penalty और consumer compensation अलग-अलग उद्देश्य पूरे करते हैं:
- Penalty: Regulatory compliance और deterrence.
- Compensation: प्रभावित consumer को राहत.
एक व्यवस्था में दोनों का समावेश कैसे हो, यह TRAI और सरकार को स्पष्ट करना चाहिए।
मेरा सुझाव: Consumer compensation को verified service failure से जोड़ें, केवल शिकायतों की संख्या से नहीं।
5. Internet Speed: 5G का प्रचार और वास्तविक Connectivity के बीच अंतर
आज internet सिर्फ entertainment का साधन नहीं है। यह education, employment, banking, e-commerce, online consultation, software development और e-governance की बुनियादी आवश्यकता बन चुका है।
लेकिन advertised maximum speed और actual user experience अलग हो सकते हैं।
Actual speed पर कई factors असर डालते हैं:
- Network coverage और signal strength.
- Peak-hour congestion.
- Device capability और network technology.
- Indoor या outdoor location.
- Backhaul capacity.
- Data-plan conditions और लागू traffic-management practices.
इसलिए केवल maximum speed का विज्ञापन consumer को पूरी तस्वीर नहीं देता।
World Engineer Proposal: Transparent Internet Performance Reporting
हर operator के लिए एक सरल, consumer-friendly performance dashboard उपलब्ध कराने पर विचार होना चाहिए, जिसमें निम्न जानकारी हो:
- Area-wise download और upload speed distribution.
- Latency और packet loss जैसे relevant performance indicators.
- Peak-hour तथा off-peak performance.
- Network availability और outage duration.
- Complaint resolution time.
- Published service claims और actual measured performance के बीच अंतर.
Measurement methodology स्पष्ट और independent verification के योग्य होनी चाहिए।
यदि किसी operator की service लगातार घोषित या नियामकीय आवश्यकताओं को पूरा नहीं करती, तो corrective action और applicable consumer relief की व्यवस्था होनी चाहिए।
6. Net Neutrality: भारत की Digital Economy की Backbone
Net neutrality का मूल विचार है कि internet access provider केवल अपने commercial interest के आधार पर lawful internet content, applications या services के साथ अनुचित भेदभाव न करे।
TRAI ने 2016 में Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations जारी किए। इसके बाद net neutrality पर 2017 की recommendations तथा अन्य regulatory measures ने इस सिद्धांत को आगे बढ़ाया।
Reference: https://trai.gov.in/node/3406
Net neutrality क्यों जरूरी है?
1. Startups और Innovation
एक छोटा startup अपने product को consumers तक पहुँचाने के लिए केवल इसलिए अतिरिक्त बाधाओं का सामना न करे कि वह किसी बड़े telecom operator के commercial partner नहीं है।
2. Education for Everyone
Online lectures, digital libraries, educational videos और learning platforms तक fair access छात्रों के लिए महत्वपूर्ण है।
3. Employment और Small Business
Freelancers, remote workers, online tutors, small businesses और digital service providers reliable internet पर निर्भर हैं।
4. Banking और Digital Payments
Digital transactions के लिए secure, reliable और accessible connectivity आवश्यक है। Network security और service availability दोनों पर ध्यान देना जरूरी है।
5. E-Governance
Government services, online applications, digital records और citizen-service platforms तक पहुँच डिजिटल समावेशन का हिस्सा है।
6. Free Flow of Lawful Information
Users को lawful websites और applications तक fair access मिलना चाहिए। Network management की आवश्यकता होने पर भी transparency और applicable regulatory safeguards जरूरी हैं।
Net Neutrality का अर्थ यह नहीं है कि हर प्रकार के internet traffic को हर परिस्थिति में बिल्कुल समान speed मिले।
Network management के कुछ legitimate technical उद्देश्यों की आवश्यकता हो सकती है। महत्वपूर्ण बात यह है कि traffic management lawful, transparent, proportionate और applicable rules के अनुरूप हो तथा उसका इस्तेमाल अनुचित commercial discrimination के लिए न किया जाए।
7. Telecom Operators को क्या Network Investment करना चाहिए?
Telecom infrastructure स्थापित करना महँगा है। Spectrum, towers, fiber, radio equipment, power systems, maintenance, cybersecurity और 4G/5G upgrades में लगातार investment की आवश्यकता होती है।
इसलिए यह कहना उचित नहीं होगा कि telecom companies को tariff कभी नहीं बढ़ाना चाहिए।
लेकिन दूसरी ओर, केवल tariff increase से network quality अपने-आप बेहतर नहीं हो जाती।
बेहतर Policy Balance
सरकार और regulator को तीन लक्ष्यों के बीच संतुलन बनाना चाहिए:
- Financial sustainability: Operators को network investment के लिए उचित returns मिलें।
- Consumer affordability: Essential connectivity आम नागरिक की पहुँच में रहे।
- Service accountability: Consumers को measurable service quality और प्रभावी शिकायत समाधान मिले।
Public reporting में यह दिखाया जाना चाहिए कि network coverage, capacity, outages और QoS compliance में कितना सुधार हुआ।
Tariff और service quality के बीच संबंध को independent data से समझना चाहिए, न कि केवल corporate promises या consumer anecdotes से।
8. Customer Care, Wrong Billing और Consumer Harassment
Telecom consumer की परेशानी केवल call drop तक सीमित नहीं है।
कुछ users निम्न प्रकार की समस्याओं की शिकायत करते हैं:
- गलत या अस्पष्ट billing.
- Correction के बाद भी refund में देरी.
- Complaint के बावजूद issue का बार-बार दोहराया जाना.
- Customer-care calls में लंबा इंतजार.
- Complaint closure की स्पष्ट जानकारी का अभाव.
- Promised service और actual delivery के बीच अंतर.
इन शिकायतों का प्रत्येक मामले में अलग सत्यापन आवश्यक है। लेकिन यदि ऐसी समस्याएँ systematic रूप से सामने आती हैं, तो बेहतर complaint monitoring और accountability जरूरी है।
Proposed Consumer Protection Reforms
A. Single Complaint Reference
हर complaint के लिए एक trackable reference number और status उपलब्ध हो।
B. Time-Bound Resolution
Complaint की category के अनुसार resolution timeline स्पष्ट हो।
C. Transparent Billing
Bill में plan charges, applicable taxes, adjustments, refunds और अन्य शुल्क समझने योग्य रूप में दिखाए जाएँ।
D. Refund Tracking
यदि गलत charge की पुष्टि होती है, तो refund या adjustment की स्थिति consumer को दिखाई जाए।
E. Repeat Complaint Monitoring
एक ही समस्या के लिए बार-बार शिकायत आने पर automated escalation हो।
F. Accountability for Proven Misconduct
जहाँ billing regulations या consumer-protection requirements का उल्लंघन साबित हो, वहाँ applicable rules के अनुसार corrective action लिया जाए।
TRAI के consolidated Telecom Consumers Protection Regulations और metering-billing accuracy regulations इस विषय के महत्वपूर्ण official references हैं।
Reference: https://trai.gov.in/release-publication/consolidated-regulations/telecom
9. क्या सरकार Telecom Companies पर पर्याप्त Control रखती है?
भारत में telecom operators licensing, spectrum, security, tariff और quality-of-service से जुड़े regulatory framework के अंतर्गत काम करते हैं।
इसलिए यह कहना सही नहीं होगा कि सरकार के पास कोई control नहीं है।
अधिक महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न यह है कि मौजूदा powers और regulations ground level पर कितने प्रभावी हैं।
तीन स्तरों पर सुधार जरूरी हैं:
Level 1 — Policy
- स्पष्ट consumer-protection objectives.
- Fair competition और investment को बढ़ावा.
- Affordable connectivity तथा rural coverage.
Level 2 — Regulation
- QoS monitoring.
- Transparent performance reporting.
- Timely enforcement.
- Applicable penalty और consumer-relief mechanisms.
Level 3 — Ground-Level Implementation
- Local network complaints का समाधान.
- Billing disputes की निष्पक्ष जाँच.
- Complaint escalation की सुविधा.
- Repeated service failures पर corrective action.
सिर्फ नियम बनाना पर्याप्त नहीं है। उनके measurable outcomes भी होने चाहिए।
10. Digital India, Online Education और Employment पर असर
Reliable internet आज एक economic multiplier है।
अगर internet connectivity खराब हो, तो उसका असर एक व्यक्ति के mobile experience से कहीं अधिक हो सकता है।
Education
Students online classes, recorded lectures, entrance-exam preparation और digital study materials पर निर्भर हैं।
भारत में schools, colleges, teachers और educational platforms free या affordable learning content उपलब्ध कराकर digital inclusion को मजबूत कर सकते हैं।
Employment
Internet disruptions remote work, online interviews, freelancing, customer support और cloud-based business operations को प्रभावित कर सकते हैं।
Small Businesses
Small merchants, home-based businesses, online tutors और service providers के लिए internet connectivity business infrastructure है।
Banking and Digital Services
Network availability और secure access digital payments तथा online public services के लिए महत्वपूर्ण हैं।
Rural Development
Broadband, fiber networks, mobile coverage और public connectivity initiatives के माध्यम से ग्रामीण क्षेत्रों में education, healthcare access, e-commerce और digital employment के अवसर बढ़ाए जा सकते हैं।
Policy objective: भारत की connectivity policy को केवल subscriber numbers और 5G coverage तक सीमित नहीं रखना चाहिए। इसे reliability, affordability, digital inclusion और consumer outcomes के आधार पर भी evaluate किया जाना चाहिए।
11. Net Neutrality और Telecom Regulation में सरकार की जिम्मेदारी
Telecom operators commercial organisations हैं। उनसे investment, innovation और financial sustainability की अपेक्षा की जाती है।
लेकिन internet access की बढ़ती आर्थिक और सामाजिक भूमिका को देखते हुए consumer protection भी उतना ही महत्वपूर्ण है।
सरकार और TRAI को निम्न विषयों पर सार्वजनिक reporting को मजबूत करना चाहिए:
- Telecom operators का QoS compliance.
- Consumer complaints और resolution performance.
- Billing disputes तथा applicable refunds.
- Network outages और restoration time.
- Net neutrality compliance और traffic-management practices.
- ग्रामीण और underserved क्षेत्रों में connectivity.
- Consumer affordability और plan transparency.
इन indicators का उपयोग करके एक National Telecom Consumer Performance Dashboard बनाया जा सकता है।
Dashboard में operator-wise और region-wise verified data, measurement definitions तथा reporting periods स्पष्ट होने चाहिए।
इससे consumers बेहतर निर्णय ले सकेंगे और regulator को सुधार की जरूरत वाले क्षेत्रों की पहचान करने में मदद मिलेगी।
12. “Don’t Pay Taxes if Government Fails?” — क्या यह सही समाधान है?
भ्रष्टाचार, खराब public services या सरकारी जवाबदेही की कमी पर सवाल उठाना नागरिक का अधिकार है।
लेकिन किसी High Court के कथन या समाचार headline को सार्वभौमिक कानूनी अधिकार समझना सही नहीं है। सरकार की किसी विफलता के कारण अपने-आप tax payment रोकने का सामान्य अधिकार पैदा नहीं होता।
यदि consumer को telecom service से परेशानी है, तो उचित रास्ते हैं:
- Operator के complaint mechanism का उपयोग करना.
- लागू प्रक्रिया के अनुसार Appellate Authority तक जाना.
- TRAI के consumer guidance और grievance-redressal channels का उपयोग करना.
- जरूरत पड़ने पर उपयुक्त consumer-dispute forum या अन्य वैधानिक remedy तलाशना.
TRAI individual consumer disputes के लिए सामान्य first-line complaint-handling body नहीं है; consumer को संबंधित operator की prescribed complaint और appeal process का पालन करना चाहिए।
लोकतंत्र में जवाबदेही जरूरी है, लेकिन विरोध और शिकायत के रास्ते कानूनसम्मत होने चाहिए।
13. PMO Complaint और Ground-Level Implementation
पुराने लेख में दर्ज PMO grievance reference:
PMOPG/I/2015/0057486
इस reference के आधार पर वर्तमान status या ground-level implementation की पुष्टि यहाँ नहीं की जा सकती। इसकी जाँच संबंधित official grievance portal और उपलब्ध case records से की जानी चाहिए।
यदि कोई पुरानी grievance अब भी unresolved है, तो एक प्रभावी follow-up में निम्न बातें होनी चाहिए:
- Original complaint की copy.
- पहले दिए गए replies और action-taken reports.
- किस department या authority को मामला भेजा गया.
- कौन-सा specific action pending है.
- वर्तमान में कौन-सा measurable outcome माँगा जा रहा है.
एक पुराने grievance number का मौजूद होना अपने-आप में यह साबित नहीं करता कि complaint अभी भी pending है या कोई action नहीं हुआ।
Public accountability के लिए सबसे उपयोगी सवाल होगा: कौन-सा action लिया गया, उसका evidence क्या है और ground level पर परिणाम क्या मिला?
14. World Engineer Proposal: National Telecom Consumer Charter 2027
यह World Engineer की ओर से एक policy proposal है, न कि वर्तमान सरकारी योजना।
भारत एक ऐसा National Telecom Consumer Charter विकसित कर सकता है जो consumer rights, service quality, affordability और network investment को एक framework में जोड़े।
प्रस्तावित 10 सुधार
- Transparent Tariff Disclosure: हर plan की कीमत, validity, benefits और restrictions स्पष्ट हों।
- Verified QoS Reporting: Operator और location के अनुसार comparable service-quality indicators.
- Repeated-Failure Compensation: निर्धारित conditions पूरी होने पर automatic service credit.
- Faster Complaint Resolution: Category-wise deadlines और escalation tracking.
- Billing Accuracy: Incorrect charges के लिए traceable correction और refund.
- Net Neutrality Compliance: Unlawful blocking, throttling और discriminatory treatment पर लागू नियमों के अनुसार कार्रवाई.
- Rural Connectivity: Underserved areas में coverage और service reliability पर measurable targets.
- Network Investment Disclosure: Infrastructure improvements और relevant performance outcomes की public reporting.
- Independent Audits: QoS data की credibility और measurement consistency की जाँच.
- Consumer Participation: Regulatory consultations, public feedback और complaint trends का उपयोग करके policy सुधार.
Implementation Roadmap
Phase 1 — First 6 Months
Existing rules, complaint trends, QoS reporting और consumer-relief provisions का assessment.
Phase 2 — 6 to 12 Months
Consumer dashboard, measurement standards और compensation framework पर consultation तथा pilot projects.
Phase 3 — 12 to 24 Months
Pilot outcomes के आधार पर wider implementation, independent audits और annual public review.
ये proposed timelines हैं; इन्हें लागू करने के लिए संबंधित authorities की मंजूरी और regulatory प्रक्रिया आवश्यक होगी।
15. सरकार और TRAI से पाँच सीधे सवाल
- यदि mobile tariffs बढ़ते हैं, तो consumers को बेहतर service quality और accountability का भरोसा कैसे मिलेगा?
- क्या operator-wise और location-wise QoS performance को आम नागरिक के लिए अधिक सरल बनाया जा सकता है?
- Repeated, verified service failures के लिए automatic consumer compensation framework पर विचार क्यों न किया जाए?
- Wrong billing, delayed refunds और repeated complaints के मामलों में resolution तथा escalation को और transparent कैसे बनाया जाए?
- Digital India की सफलता को केवल connectivity coverage से नहीं, बल्कि reliability, affordability और consumer satisfaction से भी क्यों न मापा जाए?
इन सवालों का उद्देश्य किसी एक operator को निशाना बनाना नहीं है। उद्देश्य ऐसा regulatory framework बनाना है जिसमें industry investment भी करे और consumer rights भी सुरक्षित रहें।
Conclusion: महँगा Recharge नहीं, बेहतर Digital Experience भी चाहिए
भारत का telecom sector देश की digital economy की बुनियाद है। इसकी financial sustainability जरूरी है, क्योंकि network investment के बिना connectivity का विस्तार और modernization मुश्किल होगा।
लेकिन consumer interest को केवल एक commercial transaction तक सीमित नहीं किया जा सकता।
जब कोई नागरिक mobile recharge करता है, तो वह सिर्फ data allowance नहीं खरीदता। वह communication, work, education, banking और digital participation के लिए connectivity पर निर्भर करता है।
इसीलिए telecom policy का उद्देश्य केवल tariff growth या industry profitability नहीं होना चाहिए। इसमें affordability, service reliability, transparent billing, fair competition और effective consumer protection को भी स्थान मिलना चाहिए।
सरकार का काम हर tariff तय करना नहीं, बल्कि fair competition और consumer protection सुनिश्चित करना है। TRAI का काम केवल standards प्रकाशित करना नहीं, बल्कि लागू नियमों के अनुसार compliance और accountability को प्रभावी बनाना भी है। Telecom operators का दायित्व केवल subscribers बढ़ाना नहीं, बल्कि बेहतर और भरोसेमंद service देना भी है।
World Engineer — Public Policy Message
“Digital India की असली सफलता तब होगी, जब हर नागरिक को affordable, reliable, secure और non-discriminatory internet access मिले — और खराब service के लिए जवाबदेही भी सुनिश्चित हो।”
विचार से समाधान तक | नीति से प्रभाव तक | Building a Better India
References and Official Sources
-
Financial Express — Telecom tariff hike ahead: Ambit expects 15% price increase in December; picks Bharti Airtel
https://www.financialexpress.com/market/telecom-tariff-hike-ahead-ambit-expects-15-price-increase-in-december-picks-bharti-airtel-4367960/ -
TRAI — Consolidated Telecom Regulations
https://www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/consolidated-regulations/telecom -
TRAI — Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016
https://trai.gov.in/node/3406 -
TRAI — Consumer Protection
https://trai.gov.in/telecom/consumer-protection -
Department of Telecommunications
https://dot.gov.in/
Editorial note: Tariff increase forecasts are analyst expectations, not confirmed operator announcements. Proposed compensation amounts, reporting mechanisms and implementation timelines in this article are policy recommendations. Current regulatory requirements should be verified against the latest official notifications before publication.
Ref: https://www.financialexpress.com/market/telecom-tariff-hike-ahead-ambit-expects-15-price-increase-in-december-picks-bharti-airtel-4367960/
Government Control in India's Internet and Telecom Sector and Addressing Call Drop Concerns
**Overview:**
India’s internet and telecom sector is critical for the country’s economic growth and digital transformation. Government regulations and interventions play a pivotal role in shaping this sector. One major concern for consumers is the persistent issue of call drops, which affects the quality of service.
### Government Control in the Telecom Sector
1. **Regulatory Framework:**
- **Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI):** The primary regulatory body overseeing telecom operations, ensuring fair competition, and protecting consumer interests.
- **Department of Telecommunications (DoT):** Responsible for policy formulation, licensing, and spectrum allocation.
2. **Licensing and Spectrum Allocation:**
- The government controls the allocation of spectrum, a critical resource for telecom services.
- Auctions are conducted to allocate spectrum bands to telecom operators.
3. **Regulation of Tariffs:**
- TRAI regulates tariffs to ensure affordability and fair competition.
- Intervention to prevent predatory pricing and ensure financial health of the sector.
4. **Digital India Initiative:**
- Government programs to enhance internet connectivity and digital infrastructure, particularly in rural areas.
- Promotes public Wi-Fi, fiber optic networks, and other initiatives to increase internet penetration.
5. **Security and Surveillance:**
- The government mandates telecom operators to adhere to security protocols and facilitate lawful interception and monitoring.
- Data localization requirements to ensure that data generated within India is stored within the country.
6. **Net Neutrality:**
- Regulations to ensure all internet traffic is treated equally, preventing discrimination or throttling by internet service providers.
### Addressing Call Drop Concerns
1. **Root Causes of Call Drops:**
- **Network Congestion:** High volume of calls exceeding network capacity.
- **Inadequate Infrastructure:** Insufficient number of cell towers and poor maintenance.
- **Spectrum Shortage:** Limited availability of spectrum leading to congestion.
- **Geographical Challenges:** Difficult terrains and remote areas with poor signal coverage.
2. **Government and Regulatory Measures:**
- **Quality of Service Regulations:** TRAI mandates telecom operators to meet specific quality of service standards, including call drop limits.
- **Penalties for Non-Compliance:** Imposing fines on operators failing to meet the required service quality standards.
- **Incentives for Infrastructure Development:** Encouraging operators to invest in network expansion and modernization.
3. **Telecom Operator Initiatives:**
- **Network Optimization:** Use of advanced technologies to optimize network performance and manage congestion.
- **Infrastructure Sharing:** Collaboration between operators to share infrastructure, reducing costs and improving coverage.
- **Deployment of Small Cells:** Installing small cell sites to enhance coverage and capacity in densely populated areas.
4. **Consumer Empowerment:**
- **Complaint Mechanisms:** Providing easy and accessible channels for consumers to lodge complaints about call drops and poor service.
- **Awareness Campaigns:** Educating consumers about their rights and how to report service issues.
### Suggestions for Improvement
1. **Enhanced Spectrum Allocation:**
- Allocate more spectrum to telecom operators to alleviate congestion and improve service quality.
- Explore dynamic spectrum sharing and other innovative approaches to optimize spectrum usage.
2. **Investment in Infrastructure:**
- Incentivize telecom operators to invest in building more cell towers and upgrading existing infrastructure.
- Promote the deployment of 5G technology to enhance network capacity and reliability.
3. **Regulatory Reforms:**
- Streamline regulatory processes to facilitate quicker deployment of infrastructure.
- Introduce policies that support innovation and adoption of new technologies.
4. **Public-Private Partnerships:**
- Encourage collaborations between the government and private sector to develop telecom infrastructure, especially in underserved areas.
- Leverage public funds to support infrastructure projects that have high social impact.
5. **Monitoring and Accountability:**
- Strengthen monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance with quality of service standards.
- Regular audits and transparent reporting of network performance metrics.
6. **Consumer-Centric Policies:**
- Develop policies that prioritize consumer satisfaction and protect consumer rights.
- Facilitate community feedback mechanisms to ensure consumer concerns are addressed promptly.
### Conclusion
Government control in India’s internet and telecom sector is essential for ensuring fair competition, consumer protection, and national security. However, addressing persistent issues like call drops requires a multi-faceted approach involving regulatory reforms, infrastructure investment, and enhanced collaboration between stakeholders. By implementing these improvements, India can ensure a robust and reliable telecom infrastructure that meets the needs of its growing digital population.
Internet Telecom-Government control and Call drop is concern - Don’t pay taxes if government fails to curb corruption: HC
Call Drop Is concern and Net neutrality is backbone of Indian Economy Growth
अब तक CALL DROP का पेनल्टी क्यों नहीं दिया जा रहा , कोर्ट का और सरकार के आदेश की अवेलहना क्यों हो रही है क्या ये मोबाइल ओपेरटर हमारी सरकार और कोर्ट के ऊपर है।
Mobile operators unethical practices public harassment and government policy level control
Don’t pay taxes if the government fails to curb corruption: HC
PMOPG/I/2015/0057486- still process is pending ground level implementation
कब होगा ग्राउंड लेवल इम्प्लीमेंटेशन
+PMO India +Narendra Modi +airtel India +Flipkart @TRAI #Netneutrality
Net neutrality is requirement for India development & economy Growth
अब तक CALL DROP का पेनल्टी क्यों नहीं दिया जा रहा , कोर्ट का और सरकार के आदेश की अवेलहना क्यों हो रही है क्या ये मोबाइल ओपेरटर हमारी सरकार और कोर्ट के ऊपर है।
Observation
- Telecom service Provider not able to delivered good service
- Most of the time call drop call cut after few more second really very poor service quality in Delhi capital of India and same in all over India.
- Call Drop issue with all service provider Airtel , voda phone, Reliance ....
- they promise 3G data service but at real level not able to provide 2G quality some time not able to connect with basic mail .
- Trai need to bring penalty clause for these service provider , minimum 10000/- to 50,000/- Penalty on service provider and they have to pay every consumer if call drop more then 5 time in billing cycle or in month.
- TRAi need to bring Penalty clause for service provider for data card and they have to give net connectivity graph with bill in billing cycle , Rs 50,000/- penalty per user . if quality of data rage promise is not matched between maximum and minimum level of net connectivity and speed and if complain raise up to TRAI 5 Lakh per user penalty have to pay by service provider in case of failure in service delivery .
Mobile operators unethical practices public harassment and government policy level control
No Email communication on corrected bill by saying bill cannot be re generated
Fake service charges tax and not refunded in correcting wrongly charge bill
Customer harassment by Customer care for 45 min or more in the name of solution on the way
This is the level of Indian mobile service Provider
Net Neutrality
What may India Loose:
PROMOTION OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS IN SCHOOL AND ADULT EDUCATION
All India Radio / DTH can bring in education channels
To reach to everyone - Telecast / DTH providers can help in this subject to promote education. DD channel could be a good point to start. If the government gives some special tax benefits then lot of private DTH providers and private parties also comes in front.Lack of "Net Neutrality" may lead question mark on economy Growth.
Question mark on Digital India ProjectQuestion Mark on Online employment
Question mark on potential employment in GPRS Base Business
Question mark on data security and Banking data
Question mark on Potential employment in Share and securities business
Question mark on E-governance policies and potential
Big risk on country level security.
Ref: http://www.savetheinternet.in/
To the Chairman, TRAI
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to share my views on the consultation paper published by TRAI on March 27, 2015 titled "Regulatory Framework For Over-the-Top (OTT) Services”. I am worried that this consultation paper makes sweeping assumptions about the Internet, and does not take a neutral and balanced view of the subject of Internet Licensing and Net Neutrality. Any public consultation must be approached in a neutral manner by the regulator, so that people can form an informed opinion.
I strongly support an open internet, for which I believe it is critical to uphold net neutrality and reject any moves towards licensing of Internet applications and Web services.
I urge TRAI to commit to outlining measures to protect and advance net neutrality for all Indians. Net neutrality requires that the Internet be maintained as an open platform, on which network providers treat all content, applications and services equally, without discrimination. The TRAI must give importance to safeguarding the interests of our country’s citizens and the national objective of Digital India and Make In India, over claims made by some corporate interests.
I request that my response be published on the TRAI website alongside other comments filed, in line with past practice regarding public consultations. I urge that TRAI issue a specific response to user submissions after examining the concerns raised by them, and hold open house discussions across India, accessible to users and startups before making any recommendations.
Question 1: Is it too early to establish a regulatory framework for Internet/OTT services, since internet penetration is still evolving, access speeds are generally low and there is limited coverage of high-speed broadband in the country? Or, should some beginning be made now with a regulatory framework that could be adapted to changes in the future? Please comment with justifications.
There is no need of a regulatory framework for Internet-based services and apps (which are also essentially Internet-based services) either at present or in future, because that would be contrary to the essence of an open Internet. It also needs to be pointed out that the term “OTT” (over the top) is an extreme generalisation of the wide variety of Internet platform and services. It only takes into account the way it is served to the end user and doesn’t take into account the various other complexities involved - which is a great disservice.
Any regulation or licensing of these services will lead to only one thing - increase of cost of access and degradation of user experience. Currently, these services are accessible for either a low fee and in some cases free of cost, and the companies make money through in-app advertisements. Burdening these services under a regulatory framework will force them to either increase the access fee or increase advertisements - both directly affecting the end user. It is also likely to subdue innovation, because startups will not have the financial clout to take on an established player. This will also eventually lead to pockets of monopolies within the Internet-based services space.
Question 2: Should the Internet/OTT players offering communication services (voice, messaging and video call services through applications (resident either in the country or outside) be brought under the licensing regime? Please comment with justifications.
Firstly, there is no need for licensing of internet based communication service providers. To suggest such a move further points towards the TRAI consultation being tilted in favour of telecom operators.
Secondly, fundamentally both Internet-based communication services and non-communication services are the same. They sit on top of the network provided by telecom operators. And the spectrum that telecom operators utilise to offer this network on pipe is already licensed, hence there is no need for additional licensing.
This issue also needs to be looked at from another perspective. Many non-communication services on the Internet also offer real-time chat or video interaction features for the benefit of customers, which will be affected by bringing such services under a licensing regime.
The extent of innovation we have witnessed over the years has been greatly aided by the low cost of entry. Any form of regulation or licensing will increase the entry cost, thereby hindering innovation and equal opportunity to startups to establish themselves in the market. Behind every Zoho, WhatsApp and Skype there are numerous failures. Licensing will essentially increase the cost and likelihood of failure - and greatly discourage innovation.
Question 3: Is the growth of Internet/OTT impacting the traditional revenue stream of Telecom operators/Telecom operators? If so, is the increase in data revenues of the Telecom Operators sufficient to compensate for this impact? Please comment with reasons.
There is no evidence of data revenues cannibalizing revenues from voice or SMS. In fact, data usage is soaring and it is driving the demand for telecom networks.
The question fails to acknowledge that revenue from data services also fall under the traditional revenue streams category as per the Unified Access License Agreement
[http://www.dot.gov.in/access-services/introduction-unified-access-servicescellular-mobile-services]. So, to assume that data services are impacting the growth of “traditional revenue streams” is wrong.
Services such as Skype and WhatsApp have specific use cases. They are not, and should not be, considered as substitutes to voice calling or SMS. For instance, calls made using VoIP don’t have the same clarity that we have on voice calls. Moreover, services such as WhatsApp are used for real-time chatting as opposed to SMS. Voice and SMS have their own benefits and use cases, so do VoIP and internet messaging. Customers should be free to pick and choose among these.
There is still no concrete evidence suggesting that the decline in the revenues from messaging and voice calling is due to the growth of revenues from data services, and statements from experts and industry experts appear to in fact point to there being no cannibalization of revenues.
Gopal Vittal, CEO, Airtel
“There is still no evidence that suggests that there is cannibalization,” he said when asked about whether data is cannibalizing Airtel’s voice business. On internet messaging cannibalizing SMS revenues, he said: “At this point in time is very, very tiny. And so it is not really material as we look at it.”
[http://www.medianama.com/2015/02/223-no-evidence-of-voip-cannibalization-of-voice-airtel-india-ceo-gopal-vittal/]
Vittorio Colao, CEO, Vodafone
“Growth in India has accelerated again (October-December), driven by data” [http://computer.financialexpress.com/columns/india-high-on-3g/9462/]
The company’s India unit grew by 15%, going past its counterparts during the quarter ending December as customers used its data services. [http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-02-06/news/58878696_1_organic-service-revenue-vittorio-colao-vodafone-india]
Question 4: Should the Internet/OTT players pay for use of the Telecom Operators network over and above data charges paid by consumers? If yes, what pricing options can be adopted? Could such options include prices based on bandwidth consumption? Can prices be used as a means of product/service differentiation? Please comment with justifications.
As I argue in my answers above, telecom companies are expected to grow steadily and so is data. Public statements made by officials of telecom companies, their earnings report and analysis of independent agencies suggest that telecom companies will continue to grow. So, there is no need for them to impose additional revenue from customers - and there is especially no justification of creating an extra revenue source supported by government intervention. The term “bandwidth consumption” is ambiguous. Currently, customers are billed for the quantum of data used and not the bandwidth.
Charging users an additional fee over and above the data charges to access specific internet services will result in higher costs which will dissuade people from using such services. Moreover, as explained earlier, many online businesses have video and chat applications within them to interact with customers. In such cases, it will be extremely difficult for users to ascertain the sum billed to them if they access the websites of such businesses. There will be no transparency in billing and it will run afoul of TRAI’s own 2006 Quality of Service Billing regulations which ensures transparency in billing and tariff plans.
Taking an additional fee also breaks the internet. Today, many websites, especially blogs, have hyperlinked content and users can switch from one website to another without having to worry about access or cost. But differential pricing will not provide such a seamless experience. Moreover, it tends to favor the larger firms with deep pockets, essentially not providing a level-playing field.
Question 5: Do you agree that imbalances exist in the regulatory environment in the operation of Internet/OTT players? If so, what should be the framework to address these issues? How can the prevailing laws and regulations be applied to Internet/OTT players (who operate in the virtual world) and compliance enforced? What could be the impact on the economy? Please comment with justifications.
There is no regulatory imbalance in the environment in which the internet services and applications operate. In fact, the word “regulatory imbalance” is incorrect here. Telecom operators holds licenses to spectrum which is a public resource. Internet services and applications don’t have to acquire licenses. Moreover, there is a clear distinction between services provided by telecom operators and internet platforms—so no additional regulation is required.
Also, internet services and applications are already well-covered under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Indian Penal Code, 1860. More importantly, internet services are intermediaries that allow a communication system for their users—and intermediaries cannot be held responsible for the acts of their users as per Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. Our Supreme Court has recently ruled on this area in the Shreya Singhal versus Union of India case, holding that Internet content is protected by our Constitution’s right to free expression and setting out the acceptable limits for government regulation.
Question 6: How should the security concerns be addressed with regard to OTT players providing communication services? What security conditions such as maintaining data records, logs etc. need to be mandated for such OTT players? And, how can compliance with these conditions be ensured if the applications of such OTT players reside outside the country? Please comment with justifications.
The internet services and apps are well-covered under the existing laws and regulations. These include the Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Telegraph Act, Indian Telegraph Rules, and the Information Technology Act and its different rules pertaining to intermediaries and interception. These different regulations allow the Indian government and law enforcement agencies to access the data stored by internet platforms when deemed legally necessary. Any additional regulations carry grave risk of breaching user privacy and would also require constitutional review - especially since the Government is still working on a proposed Privacy Bill.
The government and courts also have the power to block access to websites on the grounds of national security and public order. It has taken similar steps in the past and has been widely reported by the media. The transparency reports periodically published by major internet companies suggests Indian government routinely requests for user data and blocking of user accounts. Between July 2014 and December 2014, Indian authorities had 5,473 requests for data, covering 7,281 user accounts from Facebook and the company had a compliance rate of 44.69%. Google had a compliance rate of 61% with respect to the requests made by different government agencies across India.
Question 7: How should the OTT players offering app services ensure security, safety and privacy of the consumer? How should they ensure protection of consumer interest? Please comment with justifications.
Although user privacy and security is of paramount importance, additional regulation carries the inherent risk of breaching user privacy which is not in the consumer’s interest. The Information Technology Act, 2000 already addresses the security concerns of the user. But more importantly, any criminal act committed using these platforms can be tried under the Indian Penal Code. So, there is no need to burden the internet platforms with additional regulations.
Also, it is worth noting that many telecom companies in India have not made information publicly available as to whether and how they comply with regulations that guarantee security, privacy and safety of the customer. TRAI’s current paper fails to articulate why the internet services and apps should be brought under similar regulations.
Question 8:
In what manner can the proposals for a regulatory framework for OTTs in India draw from those of ETNO, referred to in para 4.23 or the best practices summarised in para 4.29? And, what practices should be proscribed by regulatory fiat? Please comment with justifications.
ETNO is similar to India’s COAI which makes it an industry lobby group. Understandably, the suggestions made by ETNO heavily favor the telecom companies and will be detrimental to customers if India refers to their suggestions.
ETNO’s stand have been widely criticized in the past. Europe’s own group of government regulators [Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication (BEREC)]
http://berec.europa.eu/files/document_register_store/2012/11/BoR_%2812%29_120_BEREC_on_ITR.pdf ETNO’s proposals could jeopardize the “continued development of the open, dynamic and global platform that the Internet provides” which will “lead to an overall loss of welfare”. Additionally, the international free expression group Article 19 says ETNO’s proposal “would seriously undermine net neutrality.
According to Access Now, ETNO’s recommendations would have meant higher data charges for customers while from an entrepreneur’s standpoint, it will limit their ability to reach out to a wider market. For a small but fast growing startup and digital media sector in India, this can potentially ring the death knell. ETNO’s suggestions on this subject so far have failed to have been accepted by any government agency - including the regulators in their own host countries. It is therefore especially troubling that TRAI is choosing to make one of their proposals a pillar of this public consultation here in India.
Question 9: What are your views on net-neutrality in the Indian context? How should the various principles discussed in para 5.47 be dealt with? Please comment with justifications.
Net Neutrality, by definition, means no discrimination of traffic flowing on the internet with respect to speed, access and price. Chile and Brazil, which are developing countries just like India, have passed laws supporting net neutrality. This is in addition to government commitments to implement net neutrality legislation in the United States and European Union.
India has 1 billion people without internet access and it is imperative for our democracy to have an open and free internet where users are free to choose the services they want to access—instead of a telecom operator deciding what information they can access.
Internet apps and services are expected to contribute 5% to India’s GDP by 2020. That will only happen of entrepreneurs, big and small, have a level playing field that encourages innovation and non-preferential treatment—something that net neutrality ensures.
Assuming there is no net neutrality, only the big players will be able to strike deals with telcos while the smaller players remain inaccessible, which will go against the principles of net neutrality as listed below:
No blocking by TSPs and ISPs on specific forms of internet traffic, services and applications.
No slowing or “throttling” internet speeds by TSPs and ISPs on specific forms of internet traffic, services and applications.
No preferential treatment of services and platforms by TSPs and ISPs.
It is also worth noting that the proposed framework will give too much power in the hands of the telecom companies, which is not healthy for the ecosystem.
Question 10: What forms of discrimination or traffic management practices are reasonable and consistent with a pragmatic approach? What should or can be permitted? Please comment with justifications.
This question assumes that traffic discrimination is necessary and is a norm. Rather, traffic discrimination should be an exception as it is against the principles of net neutrality.
In such exceptional cases, telecom companies need to have the permission of TRAI or other competent government agency through public hearing to carry out “traffic management” to ensure transparency in the entire process. Further, it should be kept in mind that such steps shouldn’t interfere with the access, affordability and quality of the services.
More importantly, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/Traffic%20Management%20Investigation%20BEREC_2.pdf jointly by BEREC and the European Commission suggest that the propensity of the telecom operators to restrict access of internet services is high. The report noted that telecom operators were most inclined to block and throttle P2P services on mobile as well as fixed line networks. VoIP, on the other hand, was blocked mostly on telecom networks.
Keeping this in mind, TRAI needs to ensure that instances of discrimination of traffic should be few, far between and, above all, transparent.
Question 11: Should the TSPs be mandated to publish various traffic management techniques used for different OTT applications? Is this a sufficient condition to ensure transparency and a fair regulatory regime?
Publishing detailed reports of various traffic management techniques for different internet services is a step in the right direction but it is definitely not sufficient. I believe it gives a false impression to consumers that traffic management is a permissible act, which it is not as it goes against the tenets of net neutrality. Making the various traffic management techniques public would ensure transparency to some extent but it fails to bring in accountability on the part of telecom operators—which is equally important.
There needs to be an auditing mechanism that would scrutinize and penalize telecom companies in case of any unlawful traffic management techniques. Also, telecom companies should be mandated to submit any traffic management-related data to TRAI, which should be made publicly available on TRAI's website.
The need for transparency and accountability is highlighted during the recent case of Airtel allegedly throttling Ogle, an online video service, on its network (http://www.medianama.com/2014/12/223-airtel-net-neutrality-ogle-throttling/).
Question 12: How should a conducive and balanced environment be created such that TSPs are able to invest in network infrastructure and CAPs are able to innovate and grow? Who should bear the network upgradation costs? Please comment with justifications
The question assumes that a “balanced” environment would lead to increased investment and upgradation of networks.. However, if revenue is generated by charging CAPs to reach customers rather than only charging users for data, the incentives for a TSP can potentially change. Telecom operators now gain the incentive to maintain a level scarcity and not upgrade existing infrastructure in order to maximize gatekeeper revenue. There is no evidence to support that access fees charged to CAPs will spark network upgradation and may have the opposite effect itself.
We’ve mentioned before that telecom operators should be acting as data pipes which can provide users access to Internet and that they stand to substantially gain from upgrading networks. Telecom operators stand to gain substantially by upgrading existing networks by proliferating the use of data by users, and it therefore stands to reason that the costs of upgradation should be borne by them. The above answers also point out that the heads of the leading telecom operators in the country have not seen evidence of cannibalization of existing services and that data usage has only been steadily increasing.
Question 13: Should TSPs be allowed to implement non-price based discrimination of services? If so, under what circumstances are such practices acceptable? What restrictions, if any, need to be placed so that such measures are not abused? What measures should be adopted to ensure transparency to consumers? Please comment with justifications.
Discrimination of services in any form is detrimental for the growth of the telecom industry itself and there should be no circumstance for a telecom operator to do so. Given the diverse nature of the Internet, telecom operators should not be allowed to determine what type of service should get more priority. For example, a consumer in India probably relies on VoIP calls to keep in touch with people abroad and if there is throttling of these services, it infringes on the user’s fundamental right of freedom of expression. An Internet service that a telecom operator thinks which could lead to traffic congestion, might be vital to consumers. Further, a telecom operator might use throttling to further a service promoted by them and induce consumers into using them, thereby eliminating choice.
Transparency alone will not bring about a fair regime for users, and it is crucial that TSPs be prohibited from discriminating between services
Question 14: Is there a justification for allowing differential pricing for data access and OTT communication services? If so, what changes need to be brought about in the present tariff and regulatory framework for telecommunication services in the country? Please comment with justifications.
The question above is simply a rephrasing Question 13. Differential pricing for data access and OTT communication services again simply amounts to discrimination of data services. Hence there is no justification for differential pricing other than furthering corporate profit. Telecom operators stand to gain substantially from the proliferation of all data services including communication services. A neutral internet allows smaller companies to innovate and compete with larger players and ensure that there is a free market. Any changes in the present tariff and regulatory framework is not needed save for ensuring that the interests of the consumer is taken care of.
Question 15: Should OTT communication service players be treated as Bulk User of Telecom Services (BuTS)? How should the framework be structured to prevent any discrimination and protect stakeholder interest? Please comment with justification.
Treating OTT communication service players as Bulk User of Telecom Services again amounts to discrimination of data services and hence it should not be allowed. The question also further assumes that the stakeholders are only the telecom operators and not the consumers. If only the interests of the telecom operators are protected by treating services which compete with their traditional services differently rather than innovating themselves, it would lead to a situation of anti-competitiveness. Telecom companies have an interest in imposing their control over information and communication networks, but the price of that would mean stifling competition, increased barriers for innovation and business and eventually infringe on the fundamental rights of Indian citizens.
Question 16: What framework should be adopted to encourage India-specific OTT apps? Please comment with justifications.
A recent Deloitte report titled Technology, Media and Telecommunications India Predictions 2015 predicted that paid apps will generate over Rs 1500 crore revenues in 2015 (http://bit.ly/1alhH5S). Increased acceptance of paid apps can only be possible if there’s Network Neutrality. In fact, Deepinder Goyal, the founder and CEO of the highly successful app Zomato recently commented "Couldn’t have built Zomato if we had a competitor on something like Airtel Zero"
The moment an app developer/company is forced to tie-up with a telecom operator to ensure that users opt for it, an artificial prohibitive barrier will be created. All app developers and the companies behind them need to be provided an even playing field.
We also need more reports on the Indian app economy, to understand, firstly, how the adoption and usage of apps is changing and, secondly, to comprehend its impact on the Indian economy.
Question 17: If the OTT communication service players are to be licensed, should they be categorised as ASP or CSP? If so, what should be the framework? Please comment with justifications.
The question of categorising doesn’t even arise, because as mentioned earlier any extra regulations or licensing is going to be detrimental to the end user. Requiring licensing of online services and mobile apps under the current telecom framework in India will have enormous negative consequences. The impossibly onerous burdens imposed by such licensing would results in many such globally developed services and apps not being launched in India - and our own startup efforts to develop local versions of such apps being killed in their early stages. The net results would be decreased consumer benefit and a massive slowdown in innovation and reduced “Make in India” efforts due to the regulatory cost of doing business becoming very high.
Question 18: Is there a need to regulate subscription charges for OTT communication services? Please comment with justifications.
Subscription charges for such apps need to be allowed to evolve as it would in a pure market economy. The subscribers (buyers) would want to pay the lowest possible price, and the app developers/companies (sellers) would want to charge as much as possible, eventually leading to a fair price.
Subscription charges for such Internet-based services have remained, more or less, quite low in India, especially because the cost of switching from one service provider to another is also quite low: This competition will ensure that charges remain fair, without the need to regulate them, going forward as well. As noted in response to earlier questions, existing Indian law also applies to online services - which would include the Consumer Protection Act and other regulations meant to prevent cheating or other illegal pricing issues.
Question 19: What steps should be taken by the Government for regulation of non-communication OTT players? Please comment with justifications.
As mentioned earlier, irrespective of what an OTT app is used for (communication, online shopping, etc) they’re all essentially Internet-based services, and hence there is no question of creating new regulatory measures.
Question 20: Are there any other issues that have a bearing on the subject discussed?
Here are the additional steps that I urge the TRAI to undertake in the interest of the public:
- Due to the absence of any formal regulations on net neutrality, TRAI should issue an order or regulation preventing network neutrality violations by telecom service providers. Some telecom companies have shown scant respect for the issues presently under consideration and despite its questionable legality have rolled out various services which violate network neutrality. Any delay in forming regulations or preventing them in the interim till the process is complete is only likely to consolidate their status. This is not only an affront to the Internet users in India but also to the regulatory powers of the TRAI.
- TRAI is requested to publish all the responses and counter responses to the consultation, including any other additional material, on its website.
- For better public involvement and awareness, open house debates should be held in major Indian cities after the consultation process is over.
