The mandate before the Sub-Group was to find out ways and means for a governmental response to the sweeping changes that were taking place in the markets because of vanishing lines among traditionally different sectors.

And the message of the report is more than clear: Convergence is inevitable; facilitate it; do not try to create roadblocks. Clearly, you cannot apply different set of rules to people who compete in the same space just because once upon a time they were different!

The report unequivocally suggests the need of integrating telecom and broadcasting licensing and regulation under a single, independent, and autonomous super regulator to be called Communication Commission of India.

The Need for a Re-look

Worldwide, convergence of technology has thrown up new challenges before regulators. Traditionally, regulators have had different roles and jurisdiction over different sectors. Some of the problems that are being encountered because of this are:

• Confusion regarding objectives of regulation: This was on account of a conflict between social/nationalistic objectives and pure economic objective.

• Limitation of sector-specific regulation: Sector-specific regulation is becoming increasingly difficult due to possibility of cross-sector service provision because of emerging technologies.

• Limitation of geography-specific regulation: While terrestrial broadcasters are subject to strict regulation within the country, satellite channels beam without any stringent regulation.

• Present regulatory framework is unable to handle new media and services like Internet.

• Overlaps of regulatory domains of multiple regulators.

• Inequality in regulatory frameworks of different countries.

• Conflicting regulatory stances by different regulatory agencies affecting operation of companies.

• Emergence of new monopolies on account of consolidation.

The report of the Prime Minister’s Council on Trade and Industries (Infrastructural Development), under the convenorship of Ratan Tata had also recommended for an Integrated Communication Policy (ICP) taking into consideration the convergence of technology, allowing all services to be carried on a single infrastructure. It specifically decried government ban on ISPs for carrying voice traffic on their networks. It had suggested the Government to take the US Telecom Act of 1996 as a benchmark for formulating the new legislation. The objectiv of the ICP as recommended was to embrace technology convergence to spur growth in the telecom sector.

However, India’s first official statement of intent to change itself in the wake of convergence came through NTP ’99. "Convergence of both markets and technologies is a reality that is forcing the alignment of industry. Convergence now allows operators to use their facilities to deliver some services reserved for other operators, necessitating a re-look into the existing policy framework," it noted.

In the light of the increasing convergence between telecom, broadcast, and IT, the PM ordered the constitution of a group under finance minister, Yashwant Sinha, to suggest steps to speedily implement the NTP ’99. This Group on Telecom-IT Convergence constituted three Sub-Groups, of which the Sub-Group III was on Convergence, whose report is under discussion here.

However, despite the best of intents and the reformist stance taken by the NTP ’99, what came in the way of a smooth implementation was the ancient (!) Indian Telegraph Act of 1885. The need was to change the law as well as the implementers of the law. The Nariman Sub-Group Report suggests ways to do that.