Telecom body alleges misinformation on IUC KEY TAKEAWAYS

The Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) has said entities seeking implementation of the ‘bill and keep’ (BAK) method for interconnections between operator systems are “distorting facts”.

They’ve cited an affidavit given by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) to the Supreme Court (SC) in 2011. That affidavit, it has said, listed symmetry of traffic as a pre-condition to implement a BAK regime. The Mukesh Ambani-owned Reliance Jio had alleged the top three operators had benefited by at least ~1 lakh crore due to non-implementation of BAK.

During an open house discussion on the interconnection usage charge (IUC) on July 20, many participants had claimed that in 2011, Trai had said it would implement the BAK regime in two years from 2011. IUC is a regulation made by Trai in which phone companies pay one another for using each other’s network to complete calls.

“Treating this affidavit that has been filed in an ongoing litigation as equivalent to a regulation, these participants have been demanding implementation of BAK,” COAI said in a letter to Trai.

The regulator, it said, had notified IUC regulations in March 2009, fixing the mobile termination charge (MTC) at 20p a minute. The regulations were challenged by telecom companies at the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). The latter in September 2010 asked Trai to reconsider the matter afresh and to complete the consultation process in a time-bound manner, so that new IUC charges could be implemented by January 1, 2011.

However, Trai filed an appeal in the SC against the TDSAT order in September 2010. The SC in July 2011 directed Trai to calculate and resubmit the MTC, with and without inclusion of capex/capital cost. Subsequently, the COAI letter said, Trai gave an affidavit in October 2011, with calculations on MTC using different methodologies.

Later, Trai sought the SC’s permission to notify the regulations with the rates contained in the affidavit. | | | COAI cited an affidavit given by Trai to the SC in 2011 That affidavit listed symmetry of traffic as a pre-condition to implement a BAK regime Jio had alleged top three operators had benefited by at least ~1 lakh crore due to nonimplementation of BAK However, the SC dismissed the application and the said petition was still pending with the SC, said COAI. Their letter says Trai initiated a consultation in 2014 to review IUC and in February 2015, the MTC was fixed at 14p per minute. “During formation of IUC regulations in 2015, Trai deliberated on feasibility of implementation of the BAK regime at length and consequently rejected the implementation due to the reason that the level of imbalance/asymmetry did not fulfill the basic requirement of symmetry before adopting a BAK regime,” it said.

Trai is reportedly aiming to conclude the IUC review soon and will come out with a new framework. The issue has been a bone of contention between incumbents and newcomer Jio. The existing telcos want fully allocated cost-based IUC; Jio and Reliance Communications (a separate group) propose the BAK model, which means zero charges. Mobile apps seeking blanket access to phone users’ information — even if irrelevant to their functions — have come under the lens of Trai, which will start consultation on data privacy and security in the telecom sector, according to a top official.

“There should be a link between what an application does and information the application is asking for. You will see a consultation paper. We are working on the issue,” Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) Chairman, R S Sharma, told PTI .On Friday, the Centre told the Supreme Court that data of users are “integral” to the right of life and personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution and it would come out with regulations to protect the same.

The submission by the Centre was made before a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra which was examining the contentious issue of 2016 privacy policy of WhatsApp. Without referring to the case, Sharma in a recent interview emphasised that information a mobile app asks for should be relevant to its purpose and that “minimal information principle” needs to be followed in normal course.

“If an app has nothing to do with your, say, gender, then it should not ask for such information. That is the broad principle,” Sharma said, citing an example.

The Trai chief declined to specify whether the consultation would result in norms or regulations around data privacy and security, saying it is “premature”. “I will raise various issues during consultation... the form (it takes) will depend on what stakeholders say, and also how much right we have as a regulator...,” he added.

At present, discussions have started internally within Trai to look at these issues of data security and privacy in the telecom sector, he noted. Sharma said he had flagged the matter at a recent ITU global symposium of regulators and stressed on the need for regulators to come together to fix “international norms” in this regard.

“If an app has nothing to do with your, say, gender, then it should not ask for such information. That is the broad principle”