13.01.2015 Views

Contents - Connect-World

Contents - Connect-World

Contents - Connect-World

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

National Development<br />

From tortoise to hare:<br />

the transformation of Indian telecom<br />

by Dr Arun Mehta, Chief Technical Officer, Net Radiophony India<br />

Government controlled Department of Telecommunications or DOT was Indias primary<br />

supplier of phone services and its telecom regulator. When India opened its market, private<br />

companies had little choice in the technologies they could use; DOT could use anything.<br />

New entrants paid high licence fees; DOT paid none. To level the field and attract<br />

investors, a regulatory agency—TRAI—was established, but court battles, and DOTs resistance,<br />

defeated its efforts. A special court now handles telecom disputes and the sector is<br />

growing.<br />

Dr Arun Mehta is currently the Chief Technical Officer of Net Radiophony, India; a Director of Kaleidoscope<br />

Private Limited a film and TV production company and the President of the Society for Telecommunications<br />

Empowerment (STEM), which seeks to bring the benefits of modern telecommunications to the poor. Dr<br />

Mehta, an electrical engineer and computer scientist is also a high profile social activist, an ex-President of<br />

the Indian Section of Amnesty International and was the co-host of a weekly IT news programme. The<br />

multi-talented Dr Mehta, a consultant to firms and organisations, large and small, for many years is the<br />

author of eLocutor, a system to meet the communication needs of Professor Stephen Hawking. Arun Meta<br />

studied and taught in India the US and Germany. Dr Mehta earned his Doctorate from Ruhr University,<br />

Germany, a MS in Computer Science from the State University of New York and a Bachelor of Technology<br />

in Electrical Engineering (First Class with Distinction) from IIT Delhi. He speaks Hindi, English, German,<br />

and French.<br />

At the start of the 1990s, telecommunications<br />

was a government monopoly.<br />

The Department of Telecommunications<br />

(DOT) was the sole supplier of phone<br />

connections in the country, except in<br />

Delhi and Mumbai, where MTNL, also<br />

totally government controlled, was the<br />

supplier. International communications<br />

was the preserve of VSNL, also a<br />

government-owned entity. Together,<br />

they constituted what might be called<br />

the DOT family. In a country with a<br />

population of almost a billion, there<br />

were just 5.1 million phone lines in<br />

1990 — roughly one for every 200 people.<br />

The DOT made telecom policy,<br />

implemented it, and acted as the regulator.<br />

A phone was considered a luxury,<br />

so those who used theirs a lot were<br />

charged at a higher rate.<br />

Around this time, the Indian state<br />

neared bankruptcy, and was even<br />

forced to sell some of its gold reserves<br />

to stay afloat. Rapid liberalisation and<br />

the dismantling of state monopolies<br />

was not just a path to faster economic<br />

growth, but also of quickly refilling the<br />

state coffers.<br />

In 1994, the National Telecom Policy<br />

was announced, which allowed the<br />

private sector to bid for licenses in different<br />

states. The DOT, an entity<br />

directly threatened by this, was put in<br />

charge of formulating and implementing<br />

this policy. The policy did not<br />

address key questions essential for the<br />

private sector to function in this area,<br />

including those of rights of way to lay<br />

cables, and spectrum allocation for<br />

wireless communications. The over<br />

enthusiasm of the private sector for<br />

what it saw as boundless possibilities<br />

for growth in a telecommunicationsstarved<br />

country led it to bid absurdly<br />

high sums for licenses. The combination<br />

was a sure recipe for disaster.<br />

By 1999, it was clear that the licence<br />

fee regime was not working and an<br />

alternative had to be found. The problems<br />

with changing the terms of the<br />

licence arrangement midstream were<br />

several: besides questions regarding<br />

the propriety of providing relief to<br />

large and rich multinationals, there<br />

was also the question of the reaction of<br />

losing parties in the licence bidding,<br />

who could legitimately feel aggrieved<br />

for being punished for having bid<br />

responsibly. In an admission that the<br />

DOT could not be relied upon to come<br />

up with workable policy, a taskforce<br />

called the Group on Telecom (GoT)<br />

was set up to formulate a new telecom<br />

policy.<br />

A complicated scheme for migration<br />

to a revenue-sharing arrangement was<br />

announced, under which the telecom<br />

companies had to still pay a share of<br />

their overdue licence fees.<br />

17

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!