Opening Note
Once bitten, twice shy. The story of spectrum bands E (71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz) and V (57-64 GHz) in India can be termed as a case in point, with the 2012 Supreme Court verdict weighing heavily on decision-making ability of the government. Making things worse, the industry is clearly divided on how the spectrum should be allocated: de-licensing or administrative allocation or auctioning.
Let’s take a look.
COAI in a letter to the telecom minister has requested allocation of the two bands through auction to access providers. The reason: delicensing or the light-touch approach will put the telecom service providers at a disadvantage since they have paid huge license fees and are burdened with charges for spectrum acquisition, spectrum usage, and right of way. This will be against the spirit of providing a level-playing field if others get this useful spectrum free.
The industry think-tank BIF, on the other hand, is opposed to auctioning of E&V bands on the ground that it would deny consumers the benefit of broadband connectivity. In a letter to the telecom secretary BIF said that E&V bands cannot be placed on the same footing as mobile access spectrum since they are microwave spectrum bands and, hence, cannot be compared to the mobile access spectrum.
Both COAI and BIF have quoted TRAI and the apex court to justify their case. While COAI argues that delicensing and allocation of the spectrum on a link to link basis will be a violation of the 2012 Supreme Court ruling that spectrum and scarce natural resources should not be allocated administratively, BIF points out that the verdict pertained to holders of mobile access spectrum only.
BIF has also taken a leaf from the TRAI recommendations of 2014 that both E&V bands should be opened up, as also the position taken by TRAI that the E band should be subject to ‘light licensing’. COAI, on the other hand, has highlighted that TRAI had left the issue of legal validity on DoT via its 8 July 2015 letter.
Globally, thanks to its usefulness, the two bands have been either delicensed or allocated using light-touch licensing approach. However, India faces a rare condition – a policy paralysis induced by the ghost of 2G case.
On the legal front, either decision can withstand judicial scrutiny as long as it can be established that the method of releasing the spectrum can help maximize social benefits and does not arbitrarily benefit a person or an organization. However, the government does need to worry about the viability of the “backbone” that is vital to Digital India.
A stitch in time saves nine, and even though India has lost a lot of time, the DoT can still make amends by shedding atychiphobia and taking a quick, decisive stand; it’s time to prove that “dot” is not a full stop but a facilitator and catalyst for growth.