In the ongoing tussle between the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) regarding the quality of services (QoS), each side is accusing the other of not fulfilling its responsibility. tele.net sought analysts’ opinion on the key issues regarding the quality of services, and possible solutions…
How can the QoS standards in mobile telephony be improved?
Vishal Malhotra: In a multi-operator environment, QoS is an important factor that determines the overall competitive performance of the service provider. QoS includes features like voice quality, service coverage, call completion rate, service access delay and point of interconnection congestion.
Expanding the network, improving interconnectivity, releasing additional spectrum and sharing of infrastructure between GSM and CDMA operators should assist in addressing issues relating to heavy network congestion, poor coverage in major cities and call drops.
Archana Sassan: There does not appear to be any immediate solution for improving the QoS of mobile services. The main reason for the poor quality standards in mobile services is network congestion, that is, shortage of points of interconnection (PoI) between mobile service providers as they have been unable to arrive at an agreement between themselves regarding the PoI. The situation is likely to improve by the setting up of more PoIs by service providers, resolution of existing disputes between the service providers, raising funds, etc. However, it will require time, funds and effort before such improvements can be realised.
The issue has become complicated ever since the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) held that interconnection agreements should be negotiated between the service providers and be brought before it only in cases of disputes. The ruling made TRAI powerless in taking action against cellular operators for poor QoS (TDSAT adjudicates on interconnection while TRAI enforces QoS). The COAI has said that under the interconnect agreements that have been signed by the private cellular operators, it could take up to 12 months for new PoIs to be provided. According to the COAI, there is bound to be pressure on interconnection in a booming market. It has accordingly sought for a four-week period to prepare a detailed reply. TRAI says that it will examine the plea for extension of time.
In the circumstances, it is imperative that the various mobile networks reach a consensus at the earliest possible to determine a viable solution to ensure minimisation of network congestion, which in turn would need to be acceptable to TRAI.
Rajat Sharma: There are two segments primarily impacting QoS standards ?? radio implementation and interconnection agreements. In the radio part, the major constraint is spectrum allocation. The growing telecom industry has witnessed asurge in spectrum usage from 10-15 mE per user in early 2000 to close to 40 mE per user in 2005. The net result is congestion in networks. Since spectrum is not available, operators tend to reuse the same spectrum across multiple sites, thereby causing interference and call drops. Hence, spectrum resolution is important to improve QoS standards. On the other hand, interconnection between operators needs to be expedited, especially with the incumbent. Private operators per se do not have interconnection issues, but with the incumbent, there is a major problem because there is a lot of delay in providing augmentation. Resolving interconnection agreement issues will also improve QoS standards.
Mahesh Uppal: Enhancing the infrastructure, for example the base stations, is one obvious way to resolve the QoS issue. What would be even more effective is additional spectrum for mobile operators. The two are interlinked and the cost of upgrade can come down quite drastically if more spectrum was available to operators.
The mobile market is so competitive that customer acquisition is the primary focus of most operators. Sometimes this does not keep pace with infrastructure upgradation. However, it might not be out of place to mention that QoS of mobile networks is rarely as good as that of fixed networks. Physical barriers, handset qualities, interference due to other electronic signals, etc. are also frequently responsible for poor quality. It may not be accurate or fair to attribute it entirely to mobile operators.
In your opinion, is TRAI being too harsh on the cellular operators? What are the issues that need to be tackled?
Vishal Malhotra: Recently, TRAI issued show cause notices to private mobile operators in whose networks congestion has crossed the prescribed benchmark level. These notices are strong reminders to the operators that sustained growth can only be achieved by strict adherence to QoS standards. Even though the issue of QoS has now been referred to TDSAT, we believe that it should be resolved through constructive discussions between TRAI and industry representatives. These discussions should be aimed at bringing the importance of QoS-related issues into focus and identifying the real problem.
Archana Sassan: In our view, TRAI has not been too “harsh” on cellular operators, since the QoS parameters have been in existence for some time now. Given the fact that traffic congestion is essentially a matter of mutual agreement between the cellular operators, it may be slightly presumptuous to hold the directions issued by TRAI as harsh. Moreover, the COAI has been aware of the directions given to all cellular operators to ensure that the QoS parameters are adhered to and it cannot now take the plea that TRAI is being harsh or unfair to them.
However, there are conflicting views on the directions issued by TRAI to the cellular operators. The COAI has held that TRAI has failed to resolve matters itself and it is doing its best with limited resources to resolve the matter. It also feels that TRAI was aware of the ground realities and the constraints faced by cellular mobile service providers (CMSPs) in providing the desired QoS, which include:
TRAI, however, holds that it has given the cellular operators adequate time to resolve the matter and has not seen suitable progress being made in this regard.
Rajat Sharma: The RIO issued by TRAI to the incumbent has witnessed delays and unwillingness by the incumbent. The focus now seems to have shifted from tackling the core interconnection issue with the incumbent to trying to push private operators to meet the QoS standards without additional spectrum or resolution of the interconnection issue. To a certain extent, TRAI is being harsh on the operators as the main issue at hand is to deal directly with the incumbent and not with the private operators.
Mahesh Uppal: TRAI may or may not be harsh, but it should consider going about QoS in a different way. It could proactively publicise easy-to-use comparative information about the QoS being provided by different operators. Customers would then vote with their feet and reward those operators whose QoS parameters are best. Operators too would understand the commercial risks of not upgrading their QoS.
Would sharing of infrastructure by operators help resolve the QoS issue?
Vishal Malhotra: Sharing of infrastructure such as towers and cell sites should improve coverage and address the issues relating to call drops and congestion. Sharing is even more critical for cities like Delhi and Mumbai, where large areas are not available for telecom operators to put up towers. Moreover,installation of towers and cell sites is a tedious process since it involves a number of clearances and intensive labour management. Keeping this in perspective, several telecom operators are now considering the option of giving out “build-ownoperate” contracts for passive telecom infrastructure. This will provide telecom operators with more resources to focus on product development, testing, feature enhancement, etc.
Archana Sassan: Yes, sharing of infrastructure would help resolve the QoS issues to an extent. In fact, TRAI, in its recent recommendations on growth of telecom services in rural India, says that infrastructure sharing is the solution for improving rural teledensity. Cellular operators are already sharing 30 per cent of the existing cell sites. However, there is a plan to make the same up to 100 per cent, which would help them to reduce setting-up costs, improve coverage, and address the problem of call drops, all of which would eventually benefit the customers. Infrastructure sharing would begin in Delhi and then be extended to Mumbai, after which the model would be replicated in other parts of the country. We understand that DoT will work out the modalities of infrastructure sharing. While the plan is aimed at cost reduction, it is likely that the lack of consensus between the various cellular operators vis-? -vis the PoIs may also be resolved once the sharing of infrastructure commences. Rajat Sharma Infrastructure sharing is more beneficial to reduce costs than directly address the QoS issue. Reducing costs can help in improving coverage in the countryside and meeting QoS requirements in the rural areas and along highways, but metro cities will not witness any respite in QoS standards by mere sharing of infrastructure.
Mahesh Uppal: Yes, it would. However, most operators ?? less so, BSNL ?? already share their infrastructure and have done so for a long time. BSNL, understandably, sees its much larger footprint in the country, especially in smaller towns and some villages, as a comparative advantage in the marketplace and is unwilling to share its infrastructure. Most private operators have marginal footprints, and so see commercial sense in reducing costs through sharing of their infrastructure.
What is the likely time-frame for implementing infrastructure sharing? Are there any issues with regard to this?
Vishal Malhotra: With the government formulating a working group to deal with the modalities on infrastructure sharing, we expect to see tangible movement in the future in this area.
Archana Sassan: As mentioned above, cellular operators are already partially sharing their infrastructure and DoT is working on the modalities for 100 per cent of the infrastructure being shared by the cellular operators. Sharing infrastructure would mean having a single tower where all cellular operators can install their equipment. There may be certain issues relating to technicalities, resolution of disputes arising between the cellular operators with respect to sharing of infrastructure, raising of funds, devising standard guidelines for infrastructure sharing, objections by the concerned municipal authorities and cost/revenue distribution amongst cellular operators.
Rajat Sharma: Presently, infrastructure sharing is happening in a piecemeal manner. Unless there is a clear mandate by the government for operators, including the incumbent, to share infrastructure, the full benefits cannot be reaped. The government seems to be serious about this now and steps are being taken to formalise this.
There are some issues concerning infrastructure sharing, for example, operators do not want to give up their first-mover advantage in new areas to fellow players by sharing infrastructure. Also, currently the incumbent does not share any infrastructure at all with the private operators, and if this continues, how can the government expect private operators to share infrastructure with each other.
Mahesh Uppal: As mentioned above, the question is relevant only in the context of BSNL’s infrastructure. The real challenge for TRAI and the government ?? since it owns BSNL ?? is to ensure that network growth, especially in the rural areas, does not suffer because of BSNL’s unwillingness to share infrastructure.
