In the case of the fourth operator, the government has given the option of any digital technology and the frequency band of 1710-1785 MHz, paired with 1805-1880 MHz. The fourth operator will get a frequency spectrum of 4.4 MHz + 4.4 MHz and if a service provider plans to have additional bandwidth, it will attract an additional revenue share of one percent subject to the availability and justification.

According to NTP’99, "WLL frequency shall be awarded to the FSP requiring the same, based on the payment of additional one time fee over and above the FSP entry fee. The basis for determining the entry fee and the basis for assigning WLL frequency shall be recommended by TRAI. All FSPs utilizing WLL shall pay a license fee in the form of revenue share for spectrum utilization. This percentage of revenue share shall be, over and above the percentage payable for the FSP license."

It is quite disturbing that though NTP’99 mentions about the payment of an additional one time entry fee over and above the FSP entry fee, the same has not been followed by TRAI and the policy makers have neglected this aspect. The table (License Fees for FSP) mentions the entry fee but it does not talk about the entry fee for operating WLL frequency. Even if we consider that the entry fee has an element of FSP and WLL entry fee, the figure is too small a value considering the fact that the cellular service providers (the first and the second operators) in the past had paid huge amounts of money for getting the spectrum.

NTP’99 says FSPs utilizing WLL frequency shall pay a license fee in the form of revenue share, which will be over and above the percentage payable for the FSP license. In this case, the policy makers have levied an additional revenue of two percent of the annual gross revenue earned through WLL subscribers for utilizing the frequency spectrum of 5 MHz + 5 MHz in 824-844 MHz paired with 869-889 MHz band.

If there is a fifth operator or a fourth operator, it should be at the same level of playing condition, as one cannot have one set of operators on a more advantageous set of conditions in comparison to another set of operators on another set of conditions, says TV Ramachandran, director general, Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI).

As we are moving towards the convergence regime, the regulator has to see that a level playing condition is there for all the services, before they switch to a composite license regime.

In terms of network deployment cost, Pramod Saxena of Motorola, opines that any network built on 1800 MHz spectrum will be costlier as 1800 MHz is used generally as an adjunct to 900 MHz in many locations for increasing capacity in congested and highly populated metropolitan cities. This will not give a level playing field to the fourth operator as infrastructure costs will be higher, added Saxena. But some of the experts in the industry feel that the network deployment cost will remain the same.