 "Love in the time of war")
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India's (Trai)'s consultation paper on voice over internet protocol (VoIP) has got wide-ranging responses from stakeholders. VoIP services are free internet-to-internet calls and cheap internet-to-phone calls. Incumbents have called the consultation process premature as VoIP is still in its nascent stage in India.
Also, internet telephony by over-the-top (OTT) providers is not regulated in India and does not come under the same service rules. OTT refers to the service you use (such a VoIP) over the network services of your service provider. The Cellular Operators' Association of India has said since there is no decision on the status of OTT communication by the government or Trai, consultation cannot be initiated.
The lobby group for GSM operators said discussion on issues of OTT services/VoIP, as raised in the consultation paper, could not be initiated because the fundamental issue of 'same service, same rule' had not been settled. The consultation paper had also raised questions on interconnect charges, which is a cause of much debate.
In response to the consultation paper, the country's largest telecom operator, Airtel, said internet telephony providers, due to their minimal investments, were likely to generate more outgoing calls towards PSTN, leading to a huge imbalance in traffic. (PSTN or public switched telephone network refers to the international telephone system that uses copper wires to carry analogue voice data.)
This imbalanced traffic would force the terminating operators to undertake more investments without having earned the revenue corresponding to their full cost of termination.
Because Trai had fixed the present termination charge at 14 paise per minute on the basis of the incremental cost model, which was far lower than the actual cost.
Idea on the other hand said given the low levels of broadband and smartphone penetration in the country, VoIP would be a service for the elites. In its response, Idea said it did not support the introduction of internet telephony that would benefit a few but would take away the opportunity to experience high-speed internet services from the majority of Indians.
Idea also contended that it was puzzled by TRAI's focus on introduction of internet telephony, when the licensor as well as the regulator had repeatedly been asking operators to increase investments in providing quality voice services. The authority was not taking into account the massive disruption and lack of investments that would take place if operators shifted their focus to internet telephony, it added.
Vodafone contended that internet telephony, as envisaged in the licensing and regulatory framework, should only be provided by a licensee under Section 4 of Indian Telegraph Act, essentially an access service provider or an internet service provider (ISP), in a restricted form. Such licensees must provide an access network (last mile) to subscribers, it added.
Vodafone also said the consultation was based on an incorrect premise that internet telephony could be provided by an access service provider/ISP even though it had no access network. The consultation paper positions a licensee with no access network, as capable of providing internet telephony. This, according to Vodafone, is a substantive deviation not allowed under the Indian Telegraph Act, the TRAI Act or under the respective licences.
Reliance Jio was of the opinion that while unrestricted internet telephony be allowed under licence conditions, what was not covered was the possibility of permitting unrestricted internet telephony to ISP and OTT providers and the regulatory framework thereof.
