Some accept transition gracefully, others painfully

The broad structure of the TRAI that we propose to have include the setting up of six divisions–economic, finance, technical, consumer affairs, research and analysis and administration. We have proposals for financial aid from Asian Development Bank (ADB) for aid for $575,000 and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) for $200,000 for setting up of all these division of the TRAI and for training officials in the international experience in setting up of regulatory authority in various countries.

What is the long term goal that you in the TRAI would strive to fulfill?

We are in a great hurry to expand the telecommunication network in the country as this a vital infrastructure which will have a bearing on the growth of the economy. For this we are in a greater hurry than the Department of Telecommunications’ vision which states that in the next 10 years we would be where China is today. I must say that since our tenure is for five years I would like to see India catching up with China in the next 10 years. This is not a sector where we can afford the luxury of delay.

There is a general perception that the relations between the TRAI and the DoT have become very strained as the first two judgements of the TRAI have gone against the DoT. Won’t this affect investor confidence?

I must point out that the DoT has not really understood the entire content of the TRAI Act. The Act has been formulated in an environment where liberalisation has just begun in the telecom sector. The major aim of the country is to bring greater investment into the country to expand the base of the telecom network that exists in the country. For this it is very important that investor confidence is built up. The TRAI judgements have not been against the DoT as such, they have been against the unfair policies which exist owing to the very nature of the monopolies which have exist in the private or public sector.

I think this initial resentment is part of growing up in a liberalised environment and has been noticed in practically very monopoly’s transition into the competitive world. I believe that these are growing up pains where some take to transition gracefelly while others learn it painfully. Either way I believe that the era of confrontation would soon change to one of partnership.

The DoT is learnt to be upset for the harsh wording of your first judgement and has filed a writ petition in the High Court against your second judgement questioning your jurisdiction in issues relating to the licence agreement. According to them, this should be between the DoT as the licensor and the private companies as the licensees. How are these issues likely to be sorted out?

The TRAI is not participating in a popularity contest and therefore it does not matter to us whether the concerned parties are happy with us or not. So far as harshness meted out to the DoT in our first judgement is concerned, it was only directed to the DOT counsel who had questioned our jurisdiction and we had corrected him citing the exact clauses in the TRAI Act. In any case it is our second judgement which is of greater significance and provides the foundation for the future functioning of the TRAI. Here since the matter is sub judice all I would like to comment is that till now, all the matter relating to this sector were between the DoT as the licensor and the private parties are the licensees. In which case what was the need for the TRAI ? The very setting up of the TRAI was an indication that issues where there were disputes, would have to be sorted out by a third umpire who would decide every case on the basis of its merits.

What is the future agenda that you have planned for the TRAI in order to resolve the problems dogging this sector?

Our first priority is to resolve the issues relating to interconnectivity. For this we are working on a conceptual paper which will be ready in the next two to three weeks which will state the actual costs involved in interconnection and what should be the fair pricing. Most of the disputes between cellular and basic service providers with the DoT have been concerning this issue. Our opinion is that high charges of interconnection actually harm the consumers more as ultimately private service providers are likely to pass this burden on to them. Therefore it would not be in the interest of the consumer if the DoT charges very high rates.

The other areas where we plan to concentrate immediately is the area of tariffs for cellular basic and value added services. Then would come the phase of sorting out issues in domestic and international long distance. The order of our emphasis could however change if a specific reference is made to us on any of these issues.