The COAI cited three instances of the alleged bias. The first was the controversy around call drops which discredited the incumbent telecom players. It culminated in Trai imposing a penalty on dropped calls, which was struck down by the Supreme Court. The second instance was when Trai - after it had banned differential pricing of data by telecom networks, as it violated the principle of net neutrality - decided to allow differential tariffs so long as the service was offered in a "closed electronics communications network". This, like a "walled garden", was a service exclusively for the subscribers of a network. It was not the internet but more like an intranet, and that is why it did not violate the principles of net neutrality, Trai had argued. The third instance of bias, according to the COAI, happened last week when Trai suggested doing away with interconnection usage charges, or IUC, of 14 paise per minute. The IUC is what a network pays to that network where the call terminates. Doing away with such charges will, the COAI has argued, burn a huge hole in the pocket of the incumbents, and, in the process, render them uncompetitive.
Jio did not take long to strike back and said the test trials were well within the provisions of the unified licence. Further, it accused the COAI of acting at the behest of a couple of "dominant" players in the industry. Some of the charges against Trai could well be unfounded. For instance, call drop is a genuine problem, not an imagined one. Although Trai's solution was short-sighted, it cannot be denied that the regulator's principal task is to ensure that the customer is not short-changed. It is a problem that needs to be fixed. Similarly, the abolition of the IUC is not a new suggestion. In October 2003, the IUC was fixed at 30 paise per minute. In April 2009, it was cut to 20 paise. In February 2015, it was reduced further to 14 paise, and Trai had promised to review it in another two years' time. Some of the incumbents decided to challenge the cut in the IUC in the courts. The discernible trend is that the IUC does not have a long shelf life left.
It can be argued with some justification that as the incumbent firms are the dominant networks, they are the main beneficiaries of the IUC and therefore it is anti-competitive. It goes against the interests of the smaller players and the newcomers. Similarly, the COAI argument - that Reliance Jio, though it is still in the test phase, has choked all the networks, which, in turn, is affecting the quality of the incumbents' services - does not sound very convincing. Still, these controversies do not augur well for the sector. It is Trai's responsibility to ensure that the rules are unambiguous and transparent, and do not discriminate in favour of a few. A regulatory vacuum is not good in a critical industry such as telecom.