National Broadband Plans-The Largely Un-examined Competition Debate

I recently came across a very interesting post on the subject of competition in OFC roll outs. This well written post by Paul Budde argues that (in the Australian context but extrapolating through examples to the international context) either we do not really need infrastructure competition in OFC infrastructure or at least it is not a very practical possibility. He cites USA and Europe as examples of lack of nation-wide fixed line competition.

It would take much more than a blog post to analyse his arguments but I would like to make one simple counter argument. Why must we have a nation wide network? In vast countries like India, USA and Australia even regional or sub regional fixed networks would be a feasible option. In non viable areas, competitive service provision may be seeded by Universal service funding. Please see my post on the Indian USOF model at Broadband Networks through the Infrastructure Sharing Route. This model did succeed in creating potential competition to the incumbent with USOF subsidy even in a remote region of the country. Other posts on infrastructure sharing could also be viewed. 

Perhaps the inability to fathom such a model comes from historical reasons wherein in almost every country the incumbent managed to protect its monopoly by harping on the economies of scale issue and the best option with the state was to regulate prices etc. Regulating monopolies cannot solve inefficiency and lack of drive to innovate that plagues all monopoly service provision. Readers are invited to read my previous posts on NBN and NOFN. Today both networks are delayed and mired in roll out problems. There is a news item about NOFN planning to impose heavy penalties on its vendors who are delaying roll out. Need I say more. I have written earlier cautioning against the faddish nature of national broadband plans and the fact that they are likely to recreate monopolies with the usual set of associated problems.

Also, unlike Mr Budde, I am not so sure that mobile networks can ever be considered perfect substitutes for fixed lines. European regulators seem to agree with me.  

I do agree that service level competition is very critical, but as far as competition in broadband goes, if it is there at every level-all the better. 

A Historic Pact or Something to Worry about?

Newspaper articles are hailing a historic infrastructure sharing pact  between two telecommunications bigwigs namely Bharti Airtel and Reliance Jio.This will reportedly  include optic fibre network – inter and intra city, submarine cable networks, towers and internet broadband services. The Times of India reports that,

"The cooperation is aimed at avoiding duplication of infrastructure, wherever possible, and to preserve capital and the environment. This will also provide redundancy in order to ensure seamless services to customers of the respective parties,"...."In future, the arrangement could be extended to roaming on 2G, 3G and 4G, and any other mutually benefiting areas relating to telecommunication, including but not limited to jointly laying optic fibre or other forms of infrastructure services. ..The pricing would be at 'arm's length', based on the prevailing market rates,"

While infrastructure sharing sounds good in theory, my worry is the lack of competition oversight when such agreements are entered into. Where is the ex ante scrutiny to ensure that other operators/subscribers are not put to disadvantage by such agreements among giant service providers which could easily have a detrimental impact on  competition in  end user service delivery. 

Ensuring Affordability of USF Supported Services

A query from an esteemed telecom expert and colleague made me feel that this may be a good topic to cover today.

Part of the reason for the Actual Access Gap referred in my previous post is the non-affordability of services for certain segments of the population. This could be because they have lower than average paying capacity in absolute terms (say the urban poor) and/or relative to cost of provision of the services (on account of geography/ own disability etc.). In developing countries, the bulk of the population in rural areas could easily fulfil both the absolute and relative criteria making it essential to provide services not only at par with urban tariff rates but at times below urban rates in spite of higher costs of provision.

The underlying rationale of many an output based aid (OBA) USF project is that if  subsidy can be provided to help the USP break even and cover CAPEX and OPEX for a finite period, demand will eventually pick up enough to make services profitable (even at a lower tariff rate.) In any case ideally in an OBA based USF project, once the USF contract comes to an end, the USP should be  free to revise traiffs as per market conditions and other (non USF related) regulatory restrictions. In the  interest of  protecting its investment the USP would not like to drive away customers by charging unreasonable tariffs.

In India, the USOF mostly follows the OBA route. USOF projects are bid out. Reverse bids are floated  with a maximum permissible subsidy level based on a detailed benchmarking exercise. Tariffs in India are regulated by the Telecom Regulatory Authority (TRAI) and beyond the jurisdiction of USF. Thus, USF may in its tenders/contracts refer to TRAI regulations on say fixed line tariffs in rural areas and require rental and call charges to be at par or lower than the same. Alternatively, as explained in my previous blog titled "Broadband Networks through the Infrastructure Sharing Route" the USOF tender/contract may require that during the contract period the USP offers subsidized infrastructure/services at a discounted rate with reference to TRAI's ceiling rates. In USOF's mobile infrastructure and services scheme, the static infrastructure was required to be offered rent free by the wining infrastructure provider to the three winning mobile service providers who would share the towers. However, mobile services themselves could be offered at any rate to end users. With their rentals costs being nullified and given the competition between three players it could be assumed that they would vie with each other to provide attractive tariff plans to the served rural population. In fact my own experience with monitoring of this scheme has shown that in this case it was customer services (such as regular supply of recharge vouchers for pre-paid connections and QoS  which distinguished the more successful USPs from the laggards). In USOF's Wire line Broadband Scheme a couple of very affordable entry level broadband tariff plans were arrived in consultation with the USP (selected by nomination in this case on account of incumbent owning 99.9% of rural wire lines). These were required to be offered along with any other tariff plans (as per USPs choice) to rural customers being served through subsidized infrastructure. (Broadband tariff is on forbearance). Significantly, and as predicted when the broadband scheme was first introduced, the entry level tariff plans formed the bulk of the uptake but over time, the higher value tariff plans offered by the USP in parallel gained popularity. As on April 2012, entry level packages constituted 32% of the total broadband subscriptions under the scheme whereas initially their share was up to 90%. Thus, the decision to discount tariffs is always a considered one based on the characteristics of the market and the gap that we need to address.

In each USOF scheme, the benchmark subsidy is modeled on the basis of projections of CAPEX, OPEX, estimated demand and paying capacity of subscribers separately for each bidding unit. This could be a state, selected individual districts, group of districts etc.The tariff assumptions/prescriptions form part of the subsidy model and benchmarking exercise.

ITU's ICTs Regulation Toolkit explains this approach in terms of 'Smart Subsidy':


‘A  smart subsidy is the term used to describe an initial subsidy (usually given on a once-only basis) that is designed to be results-oriented, does not distort the market, and encourages cost minimization and growth of the market. It helps to kick start a project or service, with the ultimate objective of the programme becoming commercially viable, whereas without the subsidy investors might otherwise have been reluctant to invest. Investors’ reluctance could be due to perceived risk or general lack of capital for the kind of service opportunities that are considered by government to be essential for socio-economic development. The important element of the smart subsidy zone is that an initial subsidy to private sector providers will make the project commercially viable on an ongoing basis by filling the financial gap with a one-time subsidy, which increases the operator’s rate of return and reduces his risk. No further subsidies are needed if the service targets are set realistically, with medium term commercial viability in view. Targeted interventions are usually implemented using a Universal Access and Service Fund (UASF).’

The Broadband Ecosystem

I reproduce below a news item about the release of an ITU report, "Planning for Progress: Why National Broadband Plans Matter."

• Countries with a clearly-defined national vision for broadband roll-out are significantly out-performing those with a more relaxed approach, according to a new report by the International Telecommunications Union.

• The report observes that there were 134  national broadband plans in place around the world by the middle of 2013, all of which aim to increase usage of broadband-enabled services and applications by citizens and businesses.

• Such plans are found to have a big impact on market penetration of fixed and mobile broadband services, with average penetration around 8% higher for both in those countries with a formalised plan.

• Market competition is also believed to play an important role here, with competitive markets averaging 1% higher penetration for fixed broadband and 26% higher for mobile broadband than those markets with a monopoly.

• Dr Hamadoun I. Toure, secretary-general of the ITU, said: “Governments are realising that broadband networks are not just vital to national competitiveness, but to the delivery of education, healthcare, public utilities like energy and water, environmental management, and a whole host of government services. Broadband is the key enabler not just of human interaction, but of the machine-to-machine communications systems that will underpin tomorrow’s world.”

• The study concludes by stating that the full economic and social benefits are most likely to be realised where there is strong partnership between government and industry, and counsels a consultative, participatory approach to policy in conjunction with key stakeholders.

Source: http://www.iptv-news.com/2013/07/national-broadband-plans-crucial-to-success-says-itu/

The report indicates regional differences different policy in  instruments being used to promote broadband

Most importantly the report highlights the need to focus on the entire broadband ecosystem rather than just the supply side. At present relatively few countries focus on the entire gamut of measures needed for true broadband related inclusion.

It  cites the case of Brazil, as a well formulated plan based on widespread consultation which takes into account the infrastructure provision targets, a conducive regulatory environment combining infrastructure sharing and competition, as well as fiscal incentives.

The results as reported are heartening,

The private sector has responded by accelerating the deployment of infrastructure. There has been significant uptake in both fixed and mobile broadband services – fixed broadband is now available in all 5,565 municipalities of the 27 states in Brazil. Since 2009, total fixed broadband subscriptions have doubled from 10 million to 20 million lines in service.  Mobile 3G services now reach 3,376 municipalities in all states, currently covering 89% of the country´s population. Mobile broadband has exploded from 7 million lines in service in 2009 to 70 million today. Mobile 4G services were recently launched in April 2013 in major State capitals, with extensive coverage targets over the next few years.  Twelve thousand community telecentres have now been equipped and provided with broadband Internet access. 

In India apart from the National Optic Fibre Network-A USF supported project, a clear broadband policy articulation is found in the National Telecom policy 2012.  Please see previous posts on National Broadband Networks and Universal Service more information.

NOFN-Do we need PPP or plain USOF subsidy?

I reproduce below a news item regarding TRAI recommendations on NOFN 

I have previously pointed out that the simplest and fastest route to funding optic fibre roll out in rural areas would have been to faithfully follow the USOF model of bidding out service areas based on reveres auctions with open access conditions. This was done by USOF for the North Eastern states. That would have been akin to PPP based on BOO model rather than BOOT.

There is absolutely no reason for the ownership of the network to be with/transfer back to the government unless it is to justify the huge paraphernalia that has been created by way of BBNL.  The whole  idea of Universal Service Funds is to provide a minimal smart subsidy and let markets take over. 

Issues such as fair open access and Right of Way cannot necessarily be solved only by public equity participation. NOFN/BBNL  at present under public ownership has failed to deliver for past 4 years (including solving the RoW problem) and its cost has trebled. 

I have examined this debate earlier in my post "Broadband Networks through Infrastructure Sharing Route"  (also placed under the label NOFN). 

Its time we dusted the departmental files containing the original idea of universal service funding based on international best practices and allowed the Indian USOF to deliver as per its own original rules of competitive neutrality. 

The news article:

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) has recommended a public-private partnership (PPP) model for BharatNet, an ambitious project involving setting up a broadband network in rural India.

A model with private incentives and long-term service delivery similar to the build-own-operate transfer or build-operate-transfer models of implementation would be the preferred means of implementation, Trai said in its recommendations announced on Monday.

“PPPs seek to combine the private sector’s capacity for delivery with the Government’s role as an enabler and regulator to overcome market failures. PPPs must be viewed as not just an instrument for easing finance and capacity constraints, but as an effective tool towards ensuring competition in service delivery and improvement in quality of service,” Trai said.

A special purpose vehicle, the Bharat Broadband Network Limited (BBNL), under the telecom ministry is now handling rolling out the optical fibre network being executed by BSNL, Railtel and Power Grid.

The previous government had approved a project cost of Rs 20,000 crore for laying optical fibre network in 2011 but progress has been poor. It is expected that BharatNet will be completed by 2017-18, after missing many deadlines. Even the project cost has increased to about Rs 70,000 crore over the years. The project was earlier named the national optical fibre network but later renamed BharatNet by the current government.

Trai said the concessionaires should be given the job of deploying the optical fibre cable and other network infrastructure as well as operating the network during the period of contract. The contract period should be of 25 years which can be further extended in block of 10, 20 or 30 years.

The national optical fibre network (NOFN) project had failed in achieving its original objective of increasing broadband subscription in the country. The task of rolling out a broadband network should be given to a concessionaire selected through reverse bidding. Funding should be done to bridge the loss incurred due to higher operational expenses and lower commercial accruals, Trai said.

It can be safely concluded that the NOFN has failed in achieving its original objectives, the regulator said. Focusing on the design of the finance and investment model for future roll-out of broadband is critical.

The National Telecom Policy of 2012 (NTP 2012) envisaged broadband on demand by 2015, and 175 million broadband subscribers by 2017 with a minimum speed of 2 Mbps and up to 100 Mbps on demand. As of September 2015, the total number of broadband (defined as download speeds >=512 Kbps) subscribers stood at 120.88 million (largely concentrated in Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu), with only 27.20 million rural subscribers. This “internet divide” between rural and urban India has become more relevant as the scope of activities carried out on the Internet has expanded beyond what was previously imagined, Trai said.

Moreover, rural broadband access will help address multiple service deficits that arise due to other infrastructure related constraints widespread among the rural population. The potential gains from increasing such access are tremendous — the Report of the Committee on NOFN in its projections of the economic benefit from BharatNet estimated that an additional 25 million Internet users by 2018-19 would result in economic benefits of Rs 66,465 crore due to the direct, indirect and spillover benefits of Internet access.

It also recommended that the central and state governments become anchor clients of this project and purchase a bandwidth of 100 megabytes per second at market rate.

To ensure that the concessionaire does not discriminate between service providers in granting access of optical fibres, Trai has recommended arm's length relationship between concessionaire and service providers, adding that 50 per cent of the optical fibre should be reserved for telecom and cable service providers.

Besides, the government should become a minority partner of the concessionaire with 26 per cent stake as this would lower financing cost and risk. "In addition, this can help the government check monopolistic behaviour on the part of the concessionaire," Trai added.

There is more to Broadband Penetration than Physical Infrastructure

This is a theme that runs through by blog. In this case I am speaking not only about broadband enabled services and capacities of stakeholders but also the need for a vibrant market with multi-stakeholder participation and abundant competition at every level, infrastructure, services and content.

An article in the Economic Times titled "Why Broadband is Stuck"  by Mr Pradip Baijal, draws attention to the heavy reliance on PSU incumbents in India to the detriment of outcomes. An example cited by him is the present NOFN scheme which is still in the roll out phase. He speaks about the need for sharing available infrastructure including the aspect of unbundling available fixed line infrastructure. There is also a mention of spectrum sharing. 

What this boils down to is Telecom Regulation. I have argued time and again in  this blog about the need for regulation to keep customer interest in focus and that encouraging competition is one of the best ways of doing so. As regards, the regulatory issues in universal access to broadband services in the Indian context, my article titled "Universal Service Policy in India-Theory and Practice" pointed out the damage done to rural wire line and broadband penetration by regulation that favoured the incumbent at the cost of competition and growth  of services. This paper was written in 2010 but we perhaps have not progressed much in practice as is evident from USOF India's current activities.

Broadband Networks through the Infrastructure Sharing Route

I had mentioned earlier that we should perhaps be concerned about the current trend of state funding for broadband roll outs. It is often presumed that private sector will not roll out high capacity Optic Fibre Cable (OFC) networks at the speed or with the spread required for desired levels of broadband penetration.

It is true that private sector may need various incentives or even subsidies to venture into less lucrative markets or uneconomical areas. However, in my view, a variety of measures can be taken  that still fall short of state funding or state ownership.

The Universal Service Fund of India (USOF) had initiated two excellent schemes for the remote and relatively backward North Eastern states of Assam,  Meghalaya, Mizoram,  Tripura (N.E I Telecom Circle) and Nagaland, Manipur Arunachal Pradesh (N.E II Telecom Circle) that involve high capacity OFC backbone networks being laid out in rural areas (from district to block level) through Output Based Aid projects. These were bid out (reverse bidding) after a painstaking bench-marking exercise to arrive at the upper limit of subsidy, keeping in view possibility of renting out existing OFC from incumbent operators, apart from laying fresh cable. The resultant network is to be shared by the lowest bidder i.e. designated Universal Service Provider or Host Operator  on non-discriminatory, open access basis with other service providers. The tariff  offered by the USP has to be at a specified rate of discount vis-a-vis the Telecom Regulatory Authority's  (TRAI's) ceiling rates for leasing OFC. Discounts were worked out keeping in view capital cost subsidies, revenue projections and operating cost requirements. The bid for the states of Assam was won by the incumbent fixed line operator BSNL. However interestingly for the N.E states Railtel won the bid even without BSNL's  advantage of ownership of majority of OFC networks. There is a strong possibility that it has relied on back-end agreements for renting OFC from private operators rather than laying fresh cable to achieve its obligations in a cost effective manner. This is permitted by the USOF tender. 

The above Private Public Partnership model could have been successfully replicated for block to village level roll outs too. Given that OFC as a technology/broadband platform is here to stay, adeqaute subsidies on reverse bidding basis could have attracted private capital in many (if not all) bidding units (states/telecom circles). This model was rejected during decision making on the National Optic Fibre Network (NOFN) on the debatable grounds that bench-marking takes too long. Personal experience with the above mentioned schemes tells me that this is not correct and that the benefits of involving a large number of market players in laying of the nation's OFC backhaul far outweigh the effort involved in tendering individual bidding units.  I have mentioned earlier relying on public ownership or funding the incumbent is perhaps more attractive in the short run in terms of  relatively less time and effort required to commence roll outs. However the long term impact of monopoly ownership of even open access networks (on competition and accompanying aspects such as innovation/customer service/technological neutrality) and regulatory burden involved in ensuring open access on continuing basis, merit consideration.

It is interesting to note that Indian telecommunications players are looking at voluntary sharing of OFC networks and setting up joint ventures to invest and manage shared networks as the way forward. This may be happening only in cities and towns at present, but it is a moot point whether this trend would not have been replicated eventually in rural areas if the PPP approach to network roll out had been followed.

As of now 2.5 lakh village panchayats (local government centres) are to be connected through NOFN or the public sector SPV called Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. This roll out would take high speed broadband  to rural India and hopefully revolutionize rural telecommunications. It is hoped that the roll out is achieved on time and  that the resultant network is effectively regulated to ensure open access and a level playing field between participating Public Sector Units (PSUs) and various private entities involved in the broadband eco system. needless to say these supply side initiatives must be accompanied by measures to address other aspects of the rural broadband value chain.   

Another important, not entirely unrelated development is the forthcoming creation of a Telecom Finance Corporation to provide capital to telecom operators in India at internationally competitive rates. This should give a fillip to network and service expansion and will hopefully be used to fund not only infrastructure but also content and capacity building  related projects.

South Africa's Plans for a National Broadband Plan

It has been reported that at a recent industry event with the theme of "Broadband – A Catalyst for Sustainable Economic Development and Promoting Digital Inclusion" the need for better policies, "collaboration between stakeholders," vertical separation and demand side measures like "ICT Skills Development, digital literacy programs for students and adults, IT resources and training"  and the" need to move to impact and creating an ecosystem … and mesh together supply side and demand,” have been emphasized by participants from government and industry.

This echoes much of what has been agreed internationally as posted earlier under National Broadband Plans and Broadband Networks. 

An earlier report about the Government's plans for broadband expansion and reactions of the industry may be see here.

http://www.zdnet.com/can-south-africas-grand-broadband-plan-succeed-7000007165/

An extract as below indicates that the 3 options being considered are similar to those which may have been considered by many a nation and certainly same as those considered in India. (Please see post titled "Broadband Networks through the Infrastructure Sharing Route"

"The government currently owns a number of assets in the telecoms market – including long-distance infrastructure provider Broadband Infraco and a 39.8-percent share in South Africa's fixed-line incumbent Telkom. The state now wants to work with the private sector to build a wholesale national broadband network along open-access principles. With around 3.5 million PC broadband connections and 10 million smartphones between South Africa's population of more than 51 million, the country is far from achieving its goal of universal access by 2020.

Though there are many broadband expansion projects underway, they are fragmented, and a comprehensive, centrally planned strategy is essential to boosting broadband in South Africa .., three funding options for the national network [are]:

• Financing a state-owned enterprise.
• Incentives for operators to offer services in economically unattractive rural areas.
• Equity and incentives provided by government could be ring-fenced in a special purpose vehicle."

The public consultation paper on National Broadband Policy suggests that for OFC backbone the incumbent (Telekom) will play the lead role in providing whole sale access even though service competition will be encouraged in service provision to customers . The document lays a welcome emphasis  on developing the broadband ecosystem.

The Net Neutrality Debate in the Indian Context-A Pinch of Salt

I reproduce here my article on the subject, also available at this link

 It is easy to get swept away in the maelstrom of views and counter views, but difficult to arrive at an informed decision on the subject of net neutrality -- the uninhibited access to legal online content without broadband service providers (BSPs) being allowed to block, degrade, or create fast/slow lanes to this content that rides over the internet (OTTs).

The fundamental question is why fix the internet when it is not broken and that too for the wrong reasons? These include inter alia India's overwhelming dependence on mobile broadband due to abysmal wireline penetration, coupled with scarcity and high cost of spectrum and congestion of the internet due to bandwidth hogging free riders. 

To meet these challenges BSPs need tools to prevent congestion and shore up their revenues through levies on content or tie-ups with OTT providers so as to invest in infrastructure, improve service quality and make surfing affordable for the poor and bridge the digital divide. These theories demand a pinch of salt.

Reason One: India depends on wireless broadband. It is true that we have an abnormally high mobile to fixed broadband ratio of 4:1 and only 15.2 million wired broadband connections in a country of 1.2 billion. This has arisen from a legacy of overprotection of PSU incumbents (BSNL & MTNL) who would not allow private operators to access their infrastructure and neither was this mandated.

As PSU monopolies led to inefficiencies, but regulatory barriers made investing in wirelines unattractive, innovation driven, privately provided, wireless services took over. India has a fixed broadband penetration ratio of 1.2 per 100 as against the world average of 9.4 per 100. The incumbents continue to lose 2-3 million landline connections every year. 

However, this imbalance needs to be rectified through regulatory reforms rather than accepted as permanent; nor should it become a reason for interfering with net neutrality. It's important to note also that in terms of competition and performance, we don't fare too well in the wireless broadband space either, ranking 113th in the world with a penetration ratio of 3.2 per 100, performing worse than Nepal and Sri Lanka. 

We have one of the lowest broadband speeds in the world, both in wired and wireless broadband and broadband prices as a percentage of per capita incomes are higher in India than in Pakistan or Sri Lanka. The top four players command about 75 percent of the wireless broadband market. They are the new incumbents and predictably, they too would like to protect their turf. 

Applications like WhatsApp and Skype represent Schumpeterian creative destruction offering much cheaper messaging and voice services over the internet. To avoid going the landline way, mobile service providers must embrace technological progress, adapt, innovate and compete, rather than being allowed to thwart consumer access to applications or OTT providers' access to consumers. 

Reason two: Scarcity of spectrum. The scarcity of adequate and contiguous spectrum must be solved by better spectrum planning in the long run and the use of technology to enhance spectrum efficiency in the short run. The former includes freeing up spectrum held by defence and railways, and allowing spectrum trading and sharing. 

The latter includes employing techniques like multiple small cells to support more users with the same amount of spectrum and creating Wi-Fi hot spots to shift users from mobile broadband to unlicensed Wi-Fi spectrum, whenever feasible. If additional infrastructure costs must be borne to this end or if BSPs must be incentivised to do so by rationalizing indirect taxes or through subsidies, then so be it. Meddling with net neutrality is not the right solution. 

Reason three: Bandwidth hogging applications should cost more. BSPs in India offer multiple tariff plans with different browsing speeds and download limits. Beyond the download limit, the speed goes down drastically (fair usage). BSPs offer top ups, to maintain speed, albeit at a cost. 

While OTT players respond by continuously innovating to make their applications more bandwidth efficient, users are certainly not enjoying a free lunch at the cost of BSPs. The more they download, the more they pay. Also, growing data usage is a source of revenue for BSPS. Data revenue has nearly doubled, from Rs.3,057.83 crore in June 2013 to Rs.5,910.28 crore in September 2014.

Reason four: BSPs need a share of OTT players' revenues to fund universal connectivity. There are more transparent and less harmful ways to encourage investment in broadband infrastructure. India has a Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF) to subsidise and promote rural telecom services. As per USOF rules, subsidy is available to both public and private sector players and is discovered through a transparent bidding process. This makes it the ideal means to bridge the digital divide.

Reason five: Free, or cheap content to allow a taste of the internet. The utility of the internet cannot be reduced to a few applications. Notwithstanding the harm this would do by way of discouraging innovation and distorting consumer choice, do we really want our price sensitive, digitally uninformed masses' internet experience to be limited largely to Facebook or Bing? 

We already rank below 11 African countries and among the Least Connected Countries on the ICT Development Index which includes ICT skills, usage and access. For deserving users, USOF can subsidise access to important applications (e-health, e-education etc.) in a transparent manner, leaving them to explore the rest of the internet as they please.

The transformative power of the World Wide Web lies in externalities created by its scale and scope - billions of users and a mindboggling array of information, products and services. Should we curb the freedom of this open exchange and that too for the wrong reasons?

Closing the market Efficiency Gap-Regulation and Competition

As I mentioned earlier closing the Market Efficiency Gap demands effective regulation and competition. In my view there is no point in utilizing public funds or USFs to take telecommunications to market segments that operators would willingly serve if they were facilitated through effective regulation and forced to as a result of healthy competition. This is one area where developing countries with overall institutional (implementation) weakness may fall short.

This makes it all the more important that they focus on putting in place sound laws and regulation modeled on international best practices but adapted to local context. This would ensures inter alia a level playing field  which precludes vested interests from rent seeking behaviour that is detrimental to the economy as a whole.

As an observer of worldwide developments in the area of telecom regulation I would like to draw the attention of readers to to some recent  news items:

The first is about investigation of several telecom giants for suspected abuse of dominance by the competition wing of the European Commission.  This can be read at:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/european_commission_inspects_telcos_over_alleged_violation_of_competition_rules/

The second is about the likely  mandating of a reduction in access charges for fixed line grid by the Italian firm Telecom Italia SpA by the Communications Regulator of Italy. This article also speaks about the general trend towards reduction in network access charges (both fixed line and mobile) across Europe as a result of conscious efforts of regulators to enhance penetration.This is available at:  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-07-10/telecom-italia-is-said-to-face-about-6-percent-cut-in-grid-access-fees.

The third is about a  more liberalised M&A regime in Europe consistent with market conditions.  This includes a softening of attitude towards active infrastructure sharing. Ultimately increasing penetration is also about ensuring the financial health of the telecom opertaors. This can be viewed at http://www.mobileworldlive.com/fours-a-crowd.

An article  from the Indian Express dated 12.7.13 about present regulations relating to M&A in India may also be of interest to readers. This may be viewed at http://www.indianexpress.com/news/permit-spectrum-trade-m-as-will-follow-vodafone/1140801/

Delay in NOFN Roll Out-As Expected

The Economic Times today reports yet another delay in roll out of NOFN by BBNL as the PSUs are unable to award contracts worth Rs 6 billion for cable laying and trenching. 

I would invite readers to review my post titled, "National Broadband Plans-The Largely Unexamined Competition Debate" under the label NOFN. I have already covered in previous posts, my reasoning as to why  India should have hesitated before venturing to roll out a country wide network using the nomination route involving Public Sector Incumbents. When various option were being examined as to which methodology to choose for NOFN, there was an explicit impatience with the usual USOF method of first arriving at subsidy benchmarks and then bidding out a scheme on a regional/sub-regional basis to all eligible operators. This was frowned upon as too tedious and a source of delay. 

It was decided that creating an SPV of PSUs would be the better way forward especially as BSNL already owns the chunk of rural OFC networks.

I have examined this debate in my post "Broadband Networks through Infrastructure Sharing Route"  (also placed under the label NOFN). An alternative model has been presented to readers. One that is based on bidding.

 The right way in  my view would have been to encourage/mandate  BSNL to share its OFC capacity with the region wise winning bidder and to include the leasing plus incentive cost in the subsidy benchmarks. With this arrangement the network could have been rolled out by multiple USPs thereby creating the required  non-discriminatory open access  OFC backbone in rural blocks  with no adverse impact on competition. The facilitation extended by USOF (Central Government) by way of coordination with state governments for right of way clearances could have been done in this model too. This would probably have gone faster and ensured that at least  a good proportion  if not all villages would be reaping the benefits of high capacity OFC backbones connectivity by now.

Disruptive Technology and Public Funding of High Speed Broadband Networks

In my posts on the issue of National Broadband Plan and Broadband  Networks, I have consistently cautioned against creating publicly funded monopolies for OFC Networks and reminded readers about the regulatory issues involved in managing our legacy of wire line based incumbents. One of the reasons for avoiding the same is the nature of telecommunications where technology change is the rule.The advent of affordable  and competitively provided mobile services debunked the notion of telecoms as natural monopolies, yet we risk repeating this faulty argument when it comes to high speed broadband.

In India, the Public Sector Incumbents BSNL and MTNL have been supported with billions of rupees to survive in a competitive environment. However, not even their dominance in wire line telephony has helped them compete with a nimble private sector. On the other hand, regulatory protection of legacy public investment in their wire line networks has had a negative effect on competition in that segment in the country. The result is very poor broadband penetration.

Today's Times of India carries an article about a new laser developed by the California Institute of Technology that promises to greatly  outdo the speed of existing OFC cables (that are based on older S-DBF lasers). This sort of disruption should be expected in telecommunications. There could be many more such developments even before the roll out of nation-wide  OFC network projects which is underway in many counties (like India's NOFN by BBNL) is even completed. What then will be the fate of the sunk (public) investment in these (then) obsolete megalithic OFC networks?

This will inevitably throw up complex regulatory issues such as those described above, with less than optimal results. This brings me back to what I wrote in my posts titled  "Broadband Networks through Infrastructure Sharing" and National Broadband Networks: Regulation, Universal Service, Competition and Monopolies."

We may need to learn from the story about the "Tortoise and the Hare" that we may not win in the long run if in our haste to speed up high speed broadband deployment, we ride roughshod over hard learned lessons about competition and technological neutrality.

Fibre, Regulation & Competition

It may be noted that a common strain running throughout my blog is my concern with huge, national level roll out of incumbent centric state-sponsored fibre networks. In the enthusiasm for broadband and its inclusion as a key component of growth or stimulus plans, developed nations too seem to have relaxed their strict concern for competition or at least have had to modify competition/telecom regulation to accommodate these projects (NBN). Developing nations like India that have adopted a "me too" approach are perhaps even worse off for the lack of adequate regulation and almost complete lack of competition assessment at a policy and project level. (BBNL)

I have often warned that there would be problems ahead. Please see my posts under national broadband plans, broadband networks and competition and have suggested an alternative approach based on tendering and infrastructure sharing.

It is of interest that the fears surrounding fibre backhaul as a key, potentially bottleneck input are being articulated even in Europe with much more sophisticated regulation in place. These have led to plea for (re)regulation of access to especially backhaul owned by former fixed line incumbents.Please see the report on Vodafone lobbying for regulated fibre access,

Do we want to go back to the era of complicated (and often less than perfect) fixed line type of regulation or can we learn from the past?

Namibia's Progress in Telecommunications Regulation

The Communication Regulatory Authority of Namibia (CRAN) is following the footsteps of communications regulators across the world in terms of establishing the regulatory basis for licensing, universal service policy and fund, spectrum and digital dividend, infrastructure sharing, open access, number portability, green ICTs etc. This can be seen at "Namibia: CRAN Expects to Award More Licenses."

Newcomers on the scene have a wealth of international experience to learn from and to adapt to their own national context. Sufficient care to ensure competition and level playing field for all at the outset can prevent costly regulatory errors.

State Speared Fibre Roll outs-NBN

Australia's NBN is almost always in the news for political reasons. An article titled, "Quest for 21st Century Broadband: A Tale from Down Under" also mentions  problems of slow roll out and slow uptake apart fro  NBN being the subject of "political football."

Thus it is written therein that,

 "The project had only reached 207,500 homes at the end of June, well below its target of 341,000. And only 70,100 of those with access to the network had signed up as paying customers......

 ....Work had to stop earlier this year when deadly asbestos was found in the pits where workers were laying new fiber cabling, and some sections of the network had to be redone in the nation’s capital Canberra because of poor workmanship.  The latest blow came on Monday, when the the Government-owned NBN Co. announced it would have to find new contractors to install fiber cabling in homes in South Australia and Western Australia."

Perhaps the problem lies in the size of the venture being implemented by a single telecom operator. Readers may also like to see "Broadband Networks through the Infrastructure Sharing Route" where I have described projects for state/regional OFC network roll outs by USOF India where the implementing USP is selected through bidding. Also see posts on Broadband Networks

Mobile VAS as a means of Mpowerment

I have already written about Indian USOF’s Sanchar Shakti programme. This programme has been instrumental in bringing highly customized  knowledge inputs to rural women’s Self Help Groups through mobile VAS helping them improve their livelihoods, self confidence and social standing. The uniqueness of this programme lies in its ability to reach out to these women in situ i.e. in their villages and homes and in that the content being delivered to them is gender sensitive and in the local language. Sanchar Shakti includes many woman farmers in its purview. Its gender specificity makes it a very unique programme in a country which still does not give enough importance to  the fact that many small holdings are farmed by women, while the men folk seek jobs on construction sites/urban areas.

Other  recent  initiatives include the soon to be launched Kisan portal for framers in India wherein 'SMS advisories and alerts will enable farmers to take informed decisions relating to different aspects of farming including crop production and marketing, animal husbandry, dairying and fisheries.' It has also been stated that, 'Officers of various departments, experts and scientists in research institution and in the field will use this portal for disseminating information, giving topical and seasonal advisories to farmers in their local languages.'

A simple form of communication like mobile SMS can be a powerful tool for empowerment of two way communication between the government and  target beneficiaries in a country where mobile penetration is strong while fixed line and broadband penetration is abysmal especially in rural areas. mVAS can provide knowledge and market information in situations where access to both is difficult on account of poor infrastructure and facilities.

A  news item titled Mobile Phone-Medically Yours describes the innovative use of mobile phones by the Government to reduce maternal and infant mortality by training health workers and providing tools for data collection and knowledge dissemination. Like Sanchar Shakti, here too the content is in the local language. What is particularly noteworthy in the case of the mobile Kunji  programme described in this article is revenue sharing between the NGOs, Government and service providers demonstrating  the commercial viability of such beneficial applications. This is also one of the aims of the Sanchar Shakti programme

International Cooperation on Regulation of Digital Markets

I am sharing a contribution I had made during a meeting in relation to the UN's Digital Cooperation Initiative at New Delhi. I had stated that, today the old regulatory silos of  telecom (networks and services), IT (OTTs, internet content, cloud computing, cyber security etc.), financial services (e-payments), Information & Broadcasting (content)  etc. may actually be  impeding the efforts of governments across the world to address challenges emanating from digital economy. This is particularly relevant for developing countries.

Addressing the digital divide requires a holistic approach addressing both supply (infrastructure and services) and demand side (skills capacity building) initiatives. Then, there are many challenges emanating from e-markets such as data collection and processing, complex competition and consumer protection issues (e.g. those arising from market power of large e-platforms), which particularly developing nations may be ill equipped to deal with. This is all the more pertinent  given that developing country markets are among the biggest sources of data and revenue for the large global digital players but need capacity building to tackle these complex issues. This calls for international cooperation. Not only will the lack of uniformity in international approach harm the growth of digital markets which cut across borders (for e.g. mismatched approaches towards data protection, taxation and competition law), the lack of capacities can also be harmful from view point of exploitation of consumers.

This calls for global consensus on standards, principles and practices. As a senior  officer from the telecom department, I have participated in ITU deliberations and often seen how such bodies despite their tremendous contribution are handicapped by the aforementioned silos when it comes to progressing discussions on complex issues surrounding digital markets. Thus, while the ITU has been discussing data protection and privacy, OTTs and competition issues during the deliberations of the current cycle of ITU Development Sector's  Study Group 1, and I have personally made contributions and presentations on this matter, we are also stymied by issues of mandate.

As a method of dealing with the above mentioned challenges, I would like to suggest that the  UN could in fact help by encouraging nations across the world, to create an informal yet international body to address these challenges. From my experience of heading the Mergers & Acquisitions work at the Competition Commission of India and co-chairing the International Competition Network's (ICN) Merger Working Group with Canada and the EU,  I would highly recommend  the  model followed by the ICN. 

It is  an informal yet effective  institution  which does not make rules but arrives at best practices which member states are free to adopt. It is a professional, global organisation led by national governments (competition regulators). It is focused on real world competition issues and is relatively free from bureaucracy. It covers almost every facet of competition law  organised into relevant verticals. It has active participation from NGAs and academia and has contributed tremendously to voluntary internationally accepted standards, consensus building and capacity building and  has  promoted global business by facilitating  multi-jurisdictional competition compliance. At the same time it has served as a valuable forum for learning, collaboration, exchange and capacity building.

This model can very usefully be adapted to suit the multi-faceted needs of digital cooperation.

Free Basics-Do we need Facebook to (selectively) connect India

I have read extensively and written previously on net neutrality. However, my pleasure in reading critics of breaching net neutrality principles has increased manifold since Facebook started placing full page ads in leading dailies. The quality of comments has improved. They are now more focussed and incisive. By Indian standards this is a desperate (and may I say vulgar display of desperation) attempt to patronisingly suggest that we need Facebook to connect India.

I am not denying that we have failed miserable in doing so, My entire blog is about how we have wasted opportunities to correct market failures and to correctly utilise universal service funds(USOF) in India. I have also pointed out regularly, the deficiencies in our approach to NOFN/BBNL.

The fact that we have multiple mobile operators in mobile/broadband does not tantamount to competition. Statistics suggest that our markets are far from competitive. This is reflected in high tariffs, low speeds and poor service quality. I place below evidence based on my own analysis of data.

Yet Facebook's blatant attempt to mislead the public and confuse the issue is something that I cannot stand by.  I reproduce below some excellent articles on the subject.

 The Hindu carries,firstly,
..Free Basics is not free, basic Internet as its name appears to imply. It has a version of Facebook, and only a few other websites and services that are willing to partner Facebook’s proprietary platform.

Today, there are nearly 1 billion websites. If we consider that there are 3.5 billion users of the Internet, 1 out of 3.5 such users also offers content or services. The reason that the Internet has become such a powerful force for change in such a short time is precisely because anybody, anywhere, can connect to anybody else, not only to receive, but also to provide content. All that is required is that both sides have access to the Internet.

All this would stop if the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or telecom companies (telcos) are given the right to act as gatekeepers. This is what net neutrality is all about — no ISP or telco can decide what part of the Internet or which websites we can access. Tim Wu, the father of net neutrality, has written that keeping the two sides of the Internet free of gatekeepers is what has given a huge incentive for generating innovation and creating content. This is what has made the Internet, as a platform, so different from other mass communications platforms such as radio and television. Essentially, it has unleashed the creativity of the masses; and it is this creativity we see in the hundreds of millions of active websites.

Facebook’s ads and Mark Zuckerberg’s advertorials talk about education, health and other services being provided by Free Basics, without telling us how on earth we are going to access doctors and medicines through the Internet; or education. It forgets that while English is spoken by only about 12 per cent of the world’s population, 53 per cent of the Internet’s content is English. If Indians need to access education or health services, they need to access it in their languages, and not in English. And no education can succeed without teachers. The Internet is not a substitute for schools and colleges but only a complement, that too if material exists in the languages that the students understand. Similarly, health demands clinics, hospitals and doctors, not a few websites on a private Facebook platform.

Regulate price of data
While the Free Basics platform has connected only 15 million people in different parts of the world, in India, we have had 60 million people join the Internet using mobiles in the last 12 months alone. And this is in spite of the high cost of mobile data charges. There are 300 million mobile broadband users in the country, an increase fuelled by the falling price of smartphones.

In spite of this increase in connectivity, we have another 600 million mobile subscribers who need to be connected to the Internet. Instead of providing Facebook and its few partner websites and calling it “basic” Internet, we need to provide full Internet at prices that people can afford. This is where the regulatory system of the country has to step in. The main barrier to Internet connectivity is the high cost of data services in the country. If we use purchasing power parity as a basis, India has expensive data services compared to most countries. That is the main barrier to Internet penetration. Till now, TRAI has not regulated data tariffs. It is time it addresses the high price of data in the country and not let such prices lead to a completely truncated Internet for the poor.

There are various ways of providing free Internet, or cost-effective Internet, to the low-end subscribers. They could be provided some free data with their data connection, or get some free time slots when the traffic on the network is low. 2G data prices can and should be brought down drastically, as the telcos have already made their investments and recovered costs from the subscribers.

The danger of privileging a private platform such as Free Basics over a public Internet is that it introduces a new kind of digital divide among the people. A large fraction of those who will join such platforms may come to believe that Facebook is indeed the Internet. As Morozov writes, the digital divide today is “about those who can afford not to be stuck in the data clutches of Silicon Valley — counting on public money or their own capital to pay for connectivity — and those who are too poor to resist the tempting offers of Google and Facebook” (“Silicon Valley exploits time and space to extend the frontiers of capitalism”, The Guardian, Nov. 29, 2015). As he points out, the basic delusion Silicon Valley is nurturing is that the power divide will be bridged through Internet connectivity, no matter who provides it or in what form. This is not likely to happen through their platforms.

The British Empire was based on the control of the seas. Today, whoever controls the data oceans controls the global economy. Silicon Valley’s data grab is the new form of colonialism we are witnessing now.

The Hindu also carries another article which is close to my heart as it focusses also on the issue of competition in telecoms.

If the objective is to connect the whole world to the Internet, then Free Basics by Facebook (previously known as internet.org) is a controversial method to achieve it. The company wants to provide a subset of the Internet free of charge to consumers, with mobile telecom operators bearing the costs of the traffic. Facebook acts as the unpaid gatekeeper of the platform.

This kind of arrangement has come to be called “zero rating” and attracted criticism from Internet civil society groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation. It argues that the Free Basics scheme has “one unavoidable, inherent flaw: Facebook’s central role, which puts it in a privileged position to monitor its users’ traffic, and allows it to act as gatekeeper (or, depending on the situation, censor)... there is no technical restriction that prevents the company from monitoring and recording the traffic of Free Basics users. Unfortunately, this means there is no guarantee that the good faith promise Facebook has made today to protect Free Basics users’ privacy will be permanent.”

Monopolists vs free market

In India, Internet civil society activists are opposing Facebook’s scheme for additional reasons. While the attempt to introduce new users to the Internet is a good thing, they argue, the scheme risks breaking the network into many smaller ones and skewing the playing field in favour of apps and services that enjoy privileged pricing.

Zero rating in general and Free Basics by Facebook in particular has many defenders among advocates of free markets and capitalism. They argue that if the mobile operator wishes to lose money or cross-subsidise some users at the cost of others, then it should be allowed to do so. Government intervention in pricing usually has bad unintended consequences, and it should be no different in the case of Internet traffic.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has re-engaged in a public consultation seeking submissions on which path it should take: the conservative path of insisting on net neutrality, a laissez-faire approach of non-intervention in the decisions of private firms, or other options in between these two.

What seems to be taken for granted but should really surprise us is that companies and policymakers accept that getting the developing world online requires methods that are different from how the developed countries got there. So, how did the hundreds of millions of people around the world become Internet subscribers? Not because of government schemes, but because they could afford it. They could afford it because market forces — competition — drove prices down to levels that made an Internet connection affordable. Unless government policies get in the way, there is no reason why the same forces will not reduce prices further to make the service affordable to ever more people, with lower disposable incomes.

There is empirical evidence for this: the 980 million mobile phone subscribers in India are able to make phone calls because they can afford the charges. Even after some price capping by TRAI, most mobile telecom operators are doing well. Despite persistent call drops and atrocious customer service, consumers enjoy reasonably good service and the industry as a whole is fairly healthy.

All this happened without a mobile phone operator providing free calls to a limited set of numbers in order to demonstrate the value of mobile phones and to encourage more people to take up subscriptions. Operators did, however, innovate in retailing, launching prepaid packages and recharging these connections. On the flip side, they also cut costs by skimping on customer service, overloading spectrum and sharing tower infrastructure.

Competition is the key

TRAI should reflect on its own success in transforming India from a low teledensity country to a moderately high teledensity one. This happened not due to “no-frills services for poor and developing country users” but by ensuring that market competition is allowed to take its course. There is no reason why mobile Internet services will not become as popular as mobile phone services as long as there is adequate competition.

Therefore, the debate on whether or not to permit zero rating is beside the point. What TRAI ought to be asking is whether there is sufficient competition in its current policy framework. Should it be licensing more telecom operators? Has the government made enough spectrum available so that mobile operators can lower prices and ensure adequate service quality? Are there bottlenecks in the hands of monopolists that raise the costs of service?

The path to achieving the dream of Digital India lies not in foreign companies deciding on what basic services India’s poor ought to access free of charge, but by encouraging ever greater competition and a level playing field. This calls for the regulator to have a hawkish approach towards anti-competitive behaviour by existing market players.

Now, let’s say that the government really wishes to make the Internet affordable to citizens whose incomes are too low to pay for it. There is a good case for this based on positive externalities: that some benefits of an individual’s connection to the Internet accrue to society as a whole. Much like primary education, an Internet connection allows a citizen to participate in the modern economy. Just as society as a whole benefits if all citizens are educated, it benefits if all citizens are connected. To be clear, this is not an argument for the government to run telecom businesses. Rather, it is to say that it is in the public interest for nearly everyone to be connected to the Internet.

Growth as a force multiplier

While it is tempting to provide free or subsidised services — like we do in India for many such things — the best method to achieve this outcome is to raise people’s incomes. If the Indian economy grows at 8 per cent over several years, the income effect will make Internet connections more affordable even if prices do not fall.

In other words, the best scheme to bring the Internet to all involves boosting competition to bring down prices and pursuing economic growth to raise people’s incomes. This is the formula that has worked elsewhere in the world, has worked in India and will continue to work. Schemes like Free Basics by Facebook and Airtel Zero are unnecessary from the perspective of connecting the unconnected.

Now, Facebook is not a charity. So, it probably must have a good explanation to its shareholders why it is spending so much of its time and resources in promoting a good cause. That explanation is likely to go: “more Internet users in the world means more users for Facebook, which we monetise in our usual ways”. It might also hint that being the gatekeeper, however open, of Internet content for hundreds of millions of people will give it a lot more market power. This is important, for as Chamath Palihapitiya, venture capitalist and an early Facebook executive says, the company worries that it will lose out if it does not capture most of the world’s Internet content on its own platform.

TRAI must take a call on whether such business strategies are anti-competitive. But in dealing with the question, the regulator must not allow itself to be persuaded that such schemes are necessary for bringing the Internet to the masses.

Wise Regulation, the Order of the Day

For quite a few days now Indian media is carrying the story about the sand mafia and the actions of an honest civil servant to prevent illegal mining. A though provoking viewpoint  has been presented on this issue in an article titled, "Between rock, sand and a hard place" in the Times of India on August 11, 2013. It states that, "[i]n several areas, Indian rules and regulations make honest business impossible. The only choice is illegal business or no business." The author of this article draws attention to the shortage of sand for a booming construction sector on account of " licensing and environmental bottlenecks." The latter creates an artificial scarcity that allows the mafia to step in and profit.I will leave readers to judge the merits of these arguments for themselves. 

Why am I writing about sand and construction? 

That is because in my view it reflects the same underlying problem that is  hampering economic activity in the country today. In a developing country that  is (let us accept it), still below par as far as institutional and administrative capacities are concerned, regulation has to be realistic, practical, simple yet sufficiently detailed in order to be unambiguous, leaving little room for arbitrariness/misinterpretation. It should be forward looking so as to not require too frequent review, but it should be reviewed when need be based on well laid down criteria. Most of all it should keep consumer welfare at its focus. 

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India's Chairperson (TRAI)  has recently commented on the controversial 3G roaming pacts among three large mobile operators in India. According to the Department of Telecommunications, these pacts replicate the characteristics of Mobile Virtual Network Operators' (MVNO) operations, something that is not yet permitted in India. The operators by sharing spectrum and infrastructure were able to provide 3G services to customers even in telecom circles where they had not won spectrum in the 3G auction. 

The TRAI Chief is quoted as having said that, " in a situation where there is no more spectrum available, it ay not be possible to continue with a regime where pacts for intra-circle roaming (ICR) in 3G services are not allowed..............This is a Catch-22 situation. How is it (closing down ICR) a solution?” 

The article on this issue goes on to say that,

According to [Mr] Khullar Indian law treats spectrum as a holy cow for some reason.

“I can understand that you don’t want to cap gains on assigned spectrum which is administratively allocated. But if everyone is buying spectrum on auction, why not permit trade in it? These are issues on which the government should no longer brook any further delay. A decision needs to be taken,” 

Again, I leave it to readers to form opinions. I would just like to highlight that I agree with the TRAI Chief that corrective regulation is the order of the day if consumer welfare and not regulation for regulations sake is our aim.

I also invite readers to go through previous posts on Telecom Regulation and the Market Efficiency Gap to appreciate the importance of effective regulation for growth and equity in telecommunications penetration.

Unbundling in Access, Spectrum, Roaming, Cross-Holding, International Bandwidth Sharing -Telecom Regulation Potpourri

I will begin with a tit bit from New Zealand. I have written about NZ's National Broadband Plan and ongoing Review of its Telecommunications Act in a  post titled "More on Broadband Networks and Ecosystems-New Zealand's efforts." An article,  "Telecom unbundling key to regulator's copper conundrum." suggests that the tussle between lower wholesale prices for access to copper lines  to give customers' cheap services and "protecting the government-funded build of a nationwide fibre network" or encouraging the transition from copper to optic fibre. The regulator's consultation paper says that "[o]ur current view is that taking account of dynamic efficiencies, a UBA price above the median will best promote competition for the LTBEU (long-term benefit of end-users),"  

News from Europe suggests that the EC is finding ways to promote a genuine single telecommunications market. This would include a common authorization for service providers to operate throughout EU. Also included would be harmonization of inputs:  

"To deliver equivalent services across the EU, operators need harmonised access to basic “inputs” like fixed networks or spectrum. In particular this could involve:

(a) More coordination of spectrum assignment for mobile/wireless services, in particular to align timing and specific authorisation conditions, so operators can more easily organise pan-European activities. This would not need to entail pan-European licensing, and revenue generated from spectrum auctions/sales should remain with Member States.

(b) Harmonised “access products” – which would make it easier in practice to offer services that run across fixed networks in several Member States."

Removal of roaming charges across EU has been in the news lately.There is also talk about a single telecoms regulator with its many pros and cons.

Indian newspapers today write about the continuing clash between interest groups as regards spectrum re-farming and auctions and the likely fall out the new unified licensing norms with the forthcoming ban on same Service Area cross-holdings  wherein formal m development ergers are likely as between RCOM and RTL

And last but not lease an interesting development-cooperation  in South Asia in terms of leasing of international bandwidth. It is reported that India plans turn to Bangladesh for meeting its global telecom connectivity requirements. "It plans to lease nearly 100 gigabytes (GBs) of international bandwidth from two state-owned suppliers in Bangladesh."Bangladesh also proposes to leverage its proposed OFC links with India to address the international connectivity needs of landlocked SAARC countries like Nepal and Bhutan, (but the Indian government is yet to take a firm view on this.)"

Critiques claim that India should create its own cable landing infrastructure.