In a bid to bring down national long distance (NLD) calling rates, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) released a consultation paper on issues relating to IP telephony in May 2008. The idea was to bring clarity on concerns relating to internet telephony and to pave the way for absorption of technology advancements that would translate into lower tariffs for end-users, as has been the case with international long distance (ILD) services.
The TRAI paper raises issues related to interconnection models, numbering resources, concerns and limitations in facilitating lawful interception of calls, regulation of interoperability between IP and traditional networks, and norms regarding the quality of services offered by service providers.
The paper has resulted in heated discussions with internet service providers (ISPs) and telecom operators not seeing eye to eye on it. According to the ISPs’ existing licensing agreements, there are no restrictions on PC-to-PC internet telephony calls and PCs or adapters can be used to call PSTN/PLMN networks abroad. This has generated competition in the ILD sector and enabled a significant reduction in tariffs.
In light of the benefits of the new technology, the government allowed unified access service (UAS) licence holders to provide IP telephony services in the NLD sector. For a number of reasons, the operators failed to launch services. Now, however, they are opposing ISPs providing IP telephony services without migrating to a UAS licence.
Telecom operators ?? including Bharti Airtel, Reliance Communications, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and Tata Teleservices Limited (TTSL) ?? led by the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) and the Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India (AUSPI) stress that, in order to maintain a level playing field across the sector, ISPs must be required to migrate to a UAS licence and be subjected to the same entry fee, licence fee revenue share and other terms and conditions as are applicable to the existing UAS/CMTS licensees.
According to Bharti Airtel, harmonising the entry fees across all segments would help curb arbitrage and grey market activities. Moreover, allowing ISPs to provide services only after fulfilling all parameters under the interconnect usage charges (IUC) regime, including point of interconnection, IUC charges, etc., would ensure a level playing field for all.
BSNL has also echoed Bharti’s view and has added that allowing ISPs to provide IP telephony services to PSTN networks, under the present arrangement, would infringe upon the scope of access providers and adversely affect the sustainability and viability of their business.
This would affect the plans of NLD operators and inhibit the creation of long distance communications infrastructure, apart from disturbing the entire interconnection regime which has been put into place after long deliberations.
ISPs on the other hand, led by the Internet Service Providers Association of India and the Internet and Mobile Association of India, have welcomed TRAI’s initiative and have recommended immediately allowing of IP telephony services because it would lead to a significant lowering of NLD calling rates thereby benefiting consumers.
ISPs do not agree with the view that IP telephony services to PSTN networks would make the playing field uneven. They argue that since they basically resell the services provided by UAS/NLD/ILD operators, a big portion of their revenues, along with termination charges, would go back to the telecom operators, thus compensating for any perceived revenue loss. There would be no revenue loss to the government as it would get 6 per cent of adjusted gross revenue on internet telephony. Besides, broadband access would receive a huge impetus across the country.
On the issues of quality of service, mandatory access to emergency numbers and lawful interception of voice calls, telecom operators have recommended that the same parameters be applied for them under the UAS licence regime. ISPs, on the other hand, have advocated lighter regulatory norms, citing the present growth of IP telephony in the same environment.
At the moment, both sides are arguing their case. It is only next month when the government announces the final guidelines on IP telephony that the complete picture will emerge.
