Vodafone Essar has written to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) pointing out that the current review of interconnection usage charges (IUC) by TRAI does not taken cognizance of or has deviated from the directions of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) and the Supreme Court.

This, the operator added, is both in relation to the timing and the principles enunciated and guidance given by the TDSAT in several key areas.

According to the company, the TDSAT has clearly stated that: ?Framing a wrong question, it is trite, would lead to a wrong answer? [101(4)] and it is therefore critical to ensure that the issues raised in the consultation paper do not countenance approaches which are not consistent with the TDSAT?s judgment.

  • In this regard, Vodafone stated that TDSAT having stated ?…Its [TRAI?s] jurisdiction being limited to determine the charges on cost based and work done principle ?? [101(5)], consideration of [non cost based approaches such as] bill and keep (zero charge) approach for any component of IUC is simply no longer an option available to TRAI. 
  •  Further, with the issue of CAPEX being settled by TDSAT stating ?It is not in controversy that cost would include CAPEX/OPEX and depreciation? [114(12)], the question ?Should CAPEX be included in calculating/ estimating termination charge?? raised by TRAI is tantamount to going against the judgment of the Hon?ble TDSAT, which is binding on the Authority. 
  •  The company also expressed serious concern that despite the TDSAT clearly stating that ??Such a methodology, in our opinion, which was going to be adopted by TRAI, should have been disclosed so as to enable the parties to offer their respective comments thereupon.  In other words, what was necessary for TRAI was to let the stakeholders aware as to which methodology was to be adopted so that comments thereupon could be made.? [98(8)], the TRAI has given absolutely no indication of the methodology proposed to be adopted by it and continues to leave all issues open. 
  • Vodafone has pointed out that without specifying the methodology to be adopted, the stakeholder?s ability to provide useful data and comment is necessarily constrained, and stakeholders do not know whether their efforts in gathering and providing data are useful or irrelevant. This would be tantamount to seeking responses in a vacuum which will render the consultation process meaningless.

 The company also expressed deep disappointment that TRAI had not dealt with /considered the expert evidence submitted by it, despite TDSAT stating that ?? TRAI should consider the matter once again upon taking into consideration all aspects of the matter including the views of the Expert.? [114(11)] and that ?acceptance of one or the other methodologies should be supported by reasons? [114(12)].

The company has asked TRAI to, on a priority basis, reframe the issues in accordance with the Hon?ble TDSATs judgment and also issue a Draft Regulation first with its reasons on the submissions, inputs, expert evidence given by all stakeholders, before issuing the final IUC Regulation.

Attached is a copy of the operator?s letter to TRAI