Wireless telephony tied in knots

Krishnan Thiagarajan

THE DECISION of the Government to accept the recommendations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and allow ``limited mobility'' on the Wireless-in-Local Loop platform appears headed for a long-drawn legal battle.

If the proposal of the Telecom Disputes Appellate Tribunal to hear the validity of TRAI's recommendations on WLL on January 29 is any indication, a major controversy is brewing over this issue.

In objective terms, the whole issue of ``limited mobility'' has be seen from two angles:

The first issue is: Was WLL as specified in the New Telecom Policy, 1999, intended only to provide the ``last-mile linkage'' for basic service operators? Probably yes, at the time the NTP was announced, in early 1999. Then how did the question of ``limited mobility'' through WLL emerge at all? It surfaced when MTNL came up with the idea of offering limited mobility services using CDMA based WLL in mid-1999 at tariff rates equivalent to that of a local call. Since then, the clamour for limited mobility services from basic service operators (otherwise facing a bleak future) gathered momentum and culminated in basic service operators (in association with BSNL/MTNL) seeking recommendations of the TRAI on this issue.

From a consumer standpoint, the ``limited mobility'' using WLL is a welcome development as it offers telecom service at tariffs which are at least one-tenth/one-seventh of the mobile tariffs (prior to and after the recent revision). Obviously, as a consumer who is not interested in the commercial dynamics, legal technicalities and technology implications surrounding the issue, the Government's decision, based on the TRAI's recommendations, offer him a ``wider choice'' and that too at an ``affordable cost''.

Unfortunately, this decision is not so straightforward as it is made out to be. While the consumers interest and rural connectivity are being touted as the reasons for the introduction of the limited mobility service, the whole controversy boils down to attrition between basic service providers (including BSNL/MTNL) and cellular operators.

Although TRAI has acted in good faith and made recommendations aimed at providing a level playing field between the cellular and basic service providers, sadly in spirit, there are several contestable provisions in the recommendations for which there are no easy solutions. Some of these areas are:

In drawing the distinction between limited mobility services through WLL to be offered by basic services and cellular services, the TRAI recommendations have stated that, ``... there is a significant difference in the scope of the two services in terms of coverage and facility, such as seamless roaming both nationally and internationally and a large number of tele and supplementary services which the GSM network is capable of offering which the basic is not, the quality and scope of service provided by CMSO (cellular mobile service operators) will continue to be different. It follows that the GSM operators will be able to command a premium on their services in comparison to the basic service operators.''

Experts Business Line spoke to think that, technically, nowhere in the world does a ``limited mobility'' service exist. Even assuming it did, the WLL technology, in the form it is sought to be introduced in the country, is, for all intents and purposes, a mobile service.

Merely imposing the restriction on the WLL services to the short distance charging area (or the local area, say, a city or tehsil) is unlikely to change the underlying nature of the service. Moreover, imposing restrictions on the coverage area to effectively curb mobility may not work in the long run as pressure is likely to mount from consumers for the full range of services which may be akin to a mobile/cellular service. As one expert said, ``It is like offering an automobile to a person and preventing him from using the reverse gear. How long do you think such a condition can last?'' If what will be offered by basic service providers turns out to be a mobile service, it will affect the operational viability and financial projections of the cellular operators. The TRAI claim that ``limited mobility'' services through WLL and mobile services are two entirely different services may not be tenable in the present context. The Government has managed to conveniently wriggle out of a difficult situation by using the escape hatch provided by TRAI.

It must be conceded that TRAI has exercised its mind fully in providing a level playing field on this issue. But given the peculiar circumstances surrounding the licensing process for both cellular and basic services in the mid-1990s and the polarised opinions in both camps, the scope of reaching any consensus between the two service providers is rather bleak. Take for instance, the entry fees paid by cellular service providers. The Cellular Operators Association of India has repeatedly claimed that the entry fee paid by cellular operators was considerably higher than that of basic service operators. Similarly, the interconnect agreement in the current form is clearly loaded in favour of the basic service operators and unless this is addressed by TRAI, there is likely to be a running battle between these two classes of service providers for quite some time to come.

At the same time, the basic service providers have contended that the playing field has always been to the advantage of the cellular operators. They have contested the relaxation of several conditions of the cellular licence such as the operation of public call offices (PCOs) by mobile players, tariffs on a cost-plus basis (unlike the subsidised call rates for basic service providers) and provision of value-added services such as SMS and WAP.

And the spate of arguments and counter-arguments will never cease. The only way to resolve this tricky issue as it stands today appears to be to progress towards an Integrated Communications Policy, somewhat on the lines of the recommendations of the Prime Minister's Council on Trade and Industry made three years ago. For this to happen, the issue of composite licences to offer both cellular and basic services, with the same terms and conditions governing the two services, may a prudent solution. All this requires the Government's direction to these players to broadbase their licences to permit provision of both cellular and basic services in each other's telecom circles. If this composite licence plan is not carried to its logical conclusion, it is likely that the ``consumer'' who may appear to win in the short term, is likely to be given the short shrift in the medium- to long-term.