Citing the violation of licence conditions, telecom companies have demanded an urgent review of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) order barring discriminatory pricing of data services. Telcos have maintained that a clause that exempts products offered over closed electronic communication networks (CECNs), or intranet, violates licence conditions.
In a letter to TRAI dated June 15, Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), the GSM industry body, said Unified Licence (UL), under Chapter IX Clause 2.1(i), stipulates that, “The licensee shall not offer VPN/closed user group services to its subscribers. The CECN is nothing but a closed user group of the electronic kind and hence impermissible as per the licence”Economic Times quoted the letter.
Also Read: TRAI Seeks Opinions On Net Neutrality
The body representing top telcos such as Bharti Airtel, Vodafone India and Idea Cellular further alleged that the regulator by exempting services being offered through closed networks, has allowed a “backdoor entry” of differential pricing through them.
Further, the very concept of CECN i.e. “treating a mobile operator’s network as a closed network is inconsistent as the mobile network operator’s network (PLMN) by definition is a public network-…and not a closed user group,” said Rajan Mathews, director general at COAI. Mobile phone operators have been at loggerheads with TRAI ever since the regulator in February disallowed discriminatory pricing of data services. It, however, said that the rule won’t govern services offered over a CECN or Intranet.
The exception for intranets has irked the defenders of net neutrality as they fear telcos can use this loophole to circumvent the order a point carriers made in their latest letter and asked the regulator to clarify what exactly it meant by a CECN and what would be allowed and what wouldn’t. Telcos are also uncertain about the exception and have sought more details to avoid investing in developing content to be streamed over an intranet and then being told they are violating the rule.
Carriers have previously also asked Trai to withdraw this order citing the confusion over CECN. TRAI has so far not given any clarification, but said it would do so on a case-by-case basis, after a carrier submits its tariff plan, prompting telcos to consider moving court against the order. In its latest letter, the telcos have upped the ante against the telecom regulator’s order on discriminatory data pricing, saying that TRAI has “inadvertently mixed up” its understanding of licence conditions.
The industry body said the regulator’s decision is based on hypothetical assumptions rather than on corroborated evidence of discrimination. Picking multiple faults with the regulator’s order, the GSM industry body has highlighted the regulator has relied upon clause no 2.1 (i) of Unified licence and Chapter IX and 2.2(i) of ISP licence agreement while prohibiting differential pricing.
These clauses say telecom service providers (TSPs) on their own should not block/restrict physical or technical access to any particular site, unless directed by the telecom department. “However, this clause does not envisage the provisioning of each type of content at the same price or charging only the end user and not the content provider or both simultaneously,” the body has said, adding that the authority has inadvertently mixed up unrestricted physical access with non-discriminatory commercial access.
COAI has also said that the clause on commercial access doesn’t prohibit TSPs from offering differential tariffs. Citing the principle of forbearance towards tariffs which the sector regulator has adopted since 2002, the COAI has requested TRAI to follow that even in the data market, until there is evidence that rights of consumers are being violated.
The industry body has highlighted that ‘differential pricing’ has played a key role in the evolution of mobile telephony in the country. “Special tariff vouchers, on-net calling, STD, roaming, toll-free etc are all examples of differential voice pricing that has worked well in the voice domain,” the body has said.