Contents - Connect-World
Contents - Connect-World
Contents - Connect-World
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