Print

Comment

Email

Digg

Del.icio.us

Reddit

One of the ideas that led to the tremendous growth of fixed wireless phones in India was the inability of state-run telcos BSNL and MTNL to provide phone lines, in what were technically non-feasible areas: areas where laying of telephone cable was difficult. Reliance and Tata took up this opportunity and used their fixed telephony license to offer WLL services. Their services were an instant success, considering their ease of use and the freedom from problems like snapping of the cables and having to deal with demanding linesmen. As the fixed wireless services were treated on a par with fixed lines, no ADC was imposed on them. After some time, the services providers paid a license fee and converted their limited mobility service into full mobile services. Today, only two services remain from the erstwhile WLL stable, fixed wireless terminals (FWT) and fixed wireless phones (FWP).

Fixed wireless services started about four years back, but nobody raised this issue of levying ADC on WLL providers such as Tata and Reliance. Things got noticed only with Tata Indicom branding its fixed wireless phone as Walky. TDSAT, acting on a complaint, termed Tata's Walky as being capable of covering a wider area rather than the customers' premises. The TDSAT in its order asked Tata Teleservices to pay ADC to BSNL, as it saw the service as a mobile service. Interestingly, not only Tata Teleservices, but BSNL, MTNL, Reliance, Shyam, and HFCL also offer the fixed wireless service.

Tata Tele claims that its service is limited to the customer's premises only and refuses to pay ADC

Tata Tele claims that its service is limited to the customer's premises only and refuses to pay ADC. It has even gone to the Supreme Court against the TDSAT order. However, before the Tatas went to court, DoT took cognizance of the TDSAT order and concluded that fixed wireless phones such as Walky be treated as mobile services and the company should pay ADC, just like any other mobile operator. Tata Tele has been asked to pay Rs 300 crore to BSNL. If this happens, the tariff for this service would have to be increased to Rs 2.10 for a three-minute call, from the Rs 1.20 now.

COAI (association of GSM operators) objects to the service on two counts. It says that fixed wireless operators are falsely positioning their fixed mobile service as a 'fixed' service and that the service is illegal because it evades payment of ADC charges. Secondly, it says, operators have been charging and retaining the ADC for calls terminating on these fixed wireless services. COAI is right in its contention. But it would have been better if COAI had raised this issue when these services were started: considering the fact that everybody agreed to phone being within the SDCA, not the customer's premises. The premises' clause was brought up only in hindsight.

AUSPI (association of basic services provider), on the other hand, argues that the basic telecom operators took the wireless route to increase tele-density and that any step adversely affects this service will have bad impact on the penetration of telephony in India. The association also gives the example of China, saying half of the total subscribers there are using fixed wireless. According to one school of thought, almost all fixed wireless phone owners also own mobile phone and it is just for the sake of some convenience that they carried it around within the SDCA, an activity that TRAI has made illegal. Operators in India are trying to use technological tools to restrict the fixed wireless users to the exact premise, but implementation is not easy and glitches have been reported. Now that the fixed wireless subscriber base has swelled to six million, any decision of imposing ADC on fixed wireless operators would mean increased burden on the consumers.

It is hoped that the debate of ADC will be laid to rest if government agrees to TRAI's proposal of phasing out the ADC by 2009 and merging it with the USO fund. Meanwhile, the government should make some interim arrangements to ensure that fixed wireless subscribers are not made to bear the burden of the GSM CDMA fight.

Sudesh Prasad