Right of Way The Showstopper

Policies in the tower infrastructure space have been driven primarily by judicial activism, increasing awareness and as well as active role of local governments and municipal bodies. Many states have not yet come up with a uniform policy in line with the

Arecent estimate indicates a requirement of more than 100,000 towers to support increased data service demands and another 50,000 towers for expanding telecom reach to the hinterlands of the country. Department of Telecommunications (DoT), in August 2013 made public Uniform Guidelines for State Governments for Issue of Clearance for installation of mobile towers after detailed consultation with all stakeholders including state governments.

However, despite all the efforts by the industry through various representations and multiple meetings with the state governments, the state policies are still not aligned with the central guidelines thus resulting in being a showstopper for faster rollouts of telecom infrastructure in respective states. Key issues with most variations are:

Multiple documentation

Artificial restrictions for tower installation

Coercive actions like sealing, disconnection of electricity at tower sites

Delay in processing of Applications and requirement of multiple approvals

Imposition of multiple levies and charges on tower infra installation

Seeking RoW approval for setting up infrastructure is a major hurdle

No uniform tower installation policy Tower companies have been impacted by uncertain and ad hoc policies being adopted by states. Further, policies in the telecom sector and particularly in tower infrastructure space have been driven primarily by judicial activism, increasing awareness and maturity of consumers and interest groups as well as active role of local governments and municipal bodies.

Site acquisition, SACFA clearances and site deployment are emerging as major operational challenges while public at large is increasingly becoming apprehensive of having cell towers in the vicinity of their households. Municipal bodies and local governments are limiting the number of roof-top tower installations.

This aside, multiple types of fee under the guise of “renewal fee, sharing fee, compounding fee, development charges,

lump sum deposits for demolition” among others are being levied on tower installation with the sole aim of revenue maximization for the government exchequer.

Some state governments have divided the entire territories into various categories like Corporations/ Municipalities / Nagar Panchayats as “high/medium/ low” potential zones to levy the differential fees.

State and local authorities have been charging multiple civic taxes and levies on tower companies, which has increased the cost of deploying towers. Lack of consistency and uniformity in taxes charged present a challenge to the industry. For instance, as per current laws, property tax is not applicable on towers. Still, there have been instances where local and state agencies have wrongly imposed property tax on telecom towers. Some of the states are treating “towers” as buildings thereby imposing all the building bye-laws on towers.

State governments should follow DoT’s guidelines on installation of towers, restricting permission/ processing fee levied by local authorities to a ‘onetime administrative fee’ only, to recover administrative expenses. Local taxes and levies should be charged on the basis of administrative expenses. There should not be additional taxes/levies instituted by local bodies other than those for restoration work considering creation of telecom infrastructure is a nation-building asset. DOT guideline stipulates only “a nominal one-time Administrative Fee” to recover administrative expenses to be levied for processing of all applications.

Obtaining right of way (RoW) clearances for deployment of telecom towers and laying of fiber-optic cables are key issues faced by tower infrastructure providers. High cost, lack of uniformity in obtaining RoW and lack of single window clearance is still a barrier for timely network rollouts.

Many states have not yet come up with a uniform policy in line with the DoT’s guidelines pertaining to RoW. Differences in policies framed by municipal corporations and gram panchayats are making compliance to norms difficult.

There have also been instances of disruption in tower operations due to demolition or temporary sealing and disconnection of electricity on account of complaints arising out of misplaced public apprehension. Such actions have severe consequences on provision of quality services to customers and costs implications for tower companies. Government should adopt non-discriminatory approach towards private sector players. Public sector is being accorded “Right of Way” not only on priority but on least of charges as well.