INTERCONNECT: Still Undecided

Will Bharti start its basic service in Haryana circle in November when the interconnection agreement is still not finalized by the incumbent? When will the TRAI formulate the model guidelines on interconnection? When will the interconnect disputes between basic service provider and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) come to an end on the access fee front? When will the interconnect disputes between cellular service provider and BSNL come to an end? Is there any time limit on dispute settlements? When will the new service providers (both cellular and basic) sign their interconnect agreement?

All these above questions are unaswered till date so is the issue of providing interconnect to new service providers in the country . This has delayed the faster rollout of services by the basic service providers. The delay in service is not good for the service providers whether incumbent or p-telcos, as both are losing on the revenue front. It even delays the process of meeting the objectives of NTP ’99.

In countries like Singapore where a service provider is mandated to lease their ducts local loops to have colocation, line sharing for ADSL service, and unbundling of local loops, in India, it is just the opposite. We presently, do not have even the basic interconection model for connecting the Tandem exchange with each other, so that service providers can interconnect and provide their subscribers with a facility to access all other telephone subscribers and avail of other telecom services.

Why do we have such vague policies on interconnect when we know that the new operator will always have problems in interconnecting with the dominant operator, the incumbent because they are going to abuse their market power. This has been the trend worldwide. Don’t we learn from worldwide experiences? In spite of all these we find the same flaw in the basic service license as well as cellular license.

The basic service license states that "The basic service licensee may enter into suitable arrangements with other service providers to negotiate interconnection agreements whereby the interconnected networks will provide the following: (a) to connect, and keep connected, to their applicable systems; (b) to establish and maintain one or more points of interconnect as are reasonably required, and are of sufficient capacity and in sufficient numbers to enable transmission and reception of the messages, by means of the applicable systems; (c) to meet the reasonable demand for transmission and reception of messages between the interconnected systems".

The cellular license states that "The interconnection tests for each and every interface with any service provider may be carried out by mutual arrangement between the licensee and the other party involved".

Both license agreements stress on mutual arrangement between the licensee and the other party involved. But if there is a dispute what is the process of dispute settlement? We do not have any answer for this in the present set up. We open up basic services and cellular services but the interconnection rules and regulations are not spelt out, which results in delay of service. We have already seen this happening in the past with all sort of services , which were liberalized by the government.

Singapore Example

The Singapore telecom market has been liberalized recently on the domestic front. Service providers like Star Hub are planning to start service very soon and others will follow soon because Singapore has a well-laid policy on the interconnect front, which India lacks. The IDA has drawn three basic policies on the interconnect front. First, one can commercially negotiate with anybody. Second, one can negotiate on the basis of all interconnect agreements that are already in place. Third, to sign the interconnect agreement on the basis of Reference Interconnection Offer (RIO). The RIO is quite detailed and runs in 640 pages. All the steps, processes, time-frames, etc, are all set out, which gives SingTel, the incumbent, very little to maneuver.

Even in the case of dispute between the two telcos, IDA has come out with a dispute-resolution framework for resolving the disputes.

Reference Interconnection Offer

The Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore has published a code of practice for competition, which stipulates dominant licensees to submit a proposed RIO to the authority for approval. RIO is in two parts. The first part outlines the procedures necessary to accept the RIO and enter into an agreement with the incumbent, SingTel. The second includes the minimum terms and conditions on which SingTel will enter into such an agreement with the telecommunications licensees.

The following interconnection-related services and wholesale services are covered by this RIO agreement: physical and virtual interconnection agreement; origination, termination and transit of network traffic; un-bundled network elements; un-bundled network services; essential support facilities; number portability; wholesale services being IPLCs; and dark fiber services.

Each party shall maintain and repair faults on interconnection links in the same manner as it maintains similar plants and repairs similar faults within the network.

Model Confidential Agreement

The agreement regulates the disclosure of a confidential information, in connection with the negotiation of interconnection agreement between the two parties. The receiving party agrees to maintain the confidentiality and not disclose the confidential information to any other party, and only use that confidential information subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement.

Dispute Resolution Framework

If there is any dispute between licensees arising out of implementation in their interconnection agreement, licensees are required to resolve the dispute in accordance with the dispute-resolution provision as per their interconnection agreement.

The referring party is required to notify the non-referring party of its intention to refer the dispute to IDA, fourteen days prior to its request. The referring party must provide evidence that it has attempted to commercially resolve the dispute between the two parties and the non-referring party is required to provide its comments on why IDA should not intervene to resolve the dispute.

IDA will seek to give notice to both the parties, within seven days of the referring party’s request, to indicate whether it will intervene to resolve the dispute.

Once the IDA decides to resolve the dispute, the parties shall, within fourteen days, submit a detailed report to IDA and should indicate the sections which are confidential.

IDA shall review and consider the unresolved matters set forth in the party’s detailed report and thereafter, issue a ‘Preliminary Order’, within thirty days of receipt of party’s responses.

The party may within the fourteen days from the date of issue of the ‘Preliminary Order’, request IDA to reconsider its decision, which should be supported by the compelling reasons for it.

IDA will seek to issue a ‘Final Order’ after the review of the party’s request to IDA, to consider its ‘Preliminary Order’. IDA will seek to issue the ‘Final Order’, within fourteen days from the date of the party’s request.

Presently what BSNL is providing is Rent & Gurantee (R&G) which is costly as well as time consuming. But, what service provider is demanding is RoW for interconnect.

Sources in BSNL says that the interconnect agreement is in its final stage and is expected within a week. But the question is whether it will care for the new operators or will it open up new series of controversies which will delay the deployment of basic services in the country.

Pravin Prashant

'We have a detailed dispute resolution process in the interconnection framework'