if, in the name of increasing competition, Trai were to reduce the already low interconnection charges, we fear it will hurt rural users even before networks can be rolled out for them. It has been shown that access to telecommunications can help improve productivity and efficiency, and enable benefits of economic growth to be shared. The rural population, therefore, at least deserves a chance. If, say, in one year, the urban-rural disparity shows no signs of abating, Trai may well be justified in considering a tougher IUC regime to reduce the unearned profits of mobile operators.
By
hemanth kumar, Senior engg, Alcatel-Lucent
| 03 09 2010 06:23:36 +0000
Yes, I agree with Mr.Inderpal Singh.In addition to govt getting particular with the nature of services offered, they also hv to get operator commitments on the quality of services offered.What with call drops, limited / discontinuous coverage ( no seamless connectivity ), it is the helpless consumer at the receiving end... Did we read somewhere " Consumerism is the shame of marketing " Well, I hope some from the cellular services sectors will read, reflect upon and act...
By
Vinay Bhide, AGM- Operations
| 07 20 2009 16:27:30 +0000
I think government is just stretching the market. Post last round of licensing, i think we have just enough players in the market to have healthy competition to benefit consumers. Eventually each market will have at max. 6 players, and after 3 years we will see lot of M&A. Though the space in Wimax and 3G is exciting and calls for new operators since this market will pick up in 2010-2012.
By
Sanjay Chaudhary, Former GM-Global Business, Reliance Communications Limited
| 05 10 2009 08:50:06 +0000
Yes. There was a time the monopoly telecom provider could not meet the needs of a growing country. Things have changed; there are enough Service Providers now who can jointly meet the growing need. Too many new Networks put pressure on the business viability of the industry, the availability of spectrum etc. The lowering of returns and margins will kill the initiative to innovate and provide more and features and facilities without increase in cost to the user. Moreover, it cause considerable foriegn exchange drain in multiplied systems and network H/W and S/W import. Being said so, there is scope of Virtual Mobile networks by more Service Providers sharing common system & Network, thus can lower the CAPEX and OPEX, and more revenue for the existing owners of the Systems and Networks. Another important aspect is that, with rolling out High Bit rate data products, the distinction between Wired and Wireless systems will diminish. This is because, with Multi-Megabit networks, the wireless portion will become less and less and the Wired network comprising OF linkage will become common back bone of both Wired and Wireless networks, the wireless protin shrinking to the end links. Therefore, now is the time to bring in more and more Companies that can provide the OFC network and system for back bone needed for a fast growing Multi-media communication system across the country. Those who are interested may please have a look in my posting on “Segregation of Telecom Service Provision and Network Operation”
By
P. Abraham Paul, MD FCOMNET
| 05 09 2009 06:07:58 +0000
I do not agree to Srinivasan. Democratic country doesn't mean that a person should be allowed to do what he feels like. There has to be some kind of restriction at some point of time. It doesn't make sense in having so many service providers in the market. It will lead to unnecessary competition. Govt. has to interfere after one point to balance the economy.
By
Shyamal Maity, Sales/BD Manager, AT&T
| 05 09 2009 05:31:27 +0000
How many cell phones are enough on one persons self? 1, 2 or 18??? Meaning how many services can one person be satisfied with? I say one SP who satisfies my need of being reachable on the move is good for me! Why should I opt for Sitema or Swan when I have a Reliance or TATA or VODAFONE or AIRTEL? The government is for the first time thinking beyond just making money thats what I feel and I applaud this move! I feel that the cellular market is already stagnated with more than 14 service providers. (i hope my number is right, if not excuse me!)
By
Makrand Bhave, AGM - Corporate Business, E18, part of Network 18 Group
| 05 08 2009 08:02:35 +0000
|
We are a democratic country, we cannot restrict someone from doing business. We should have a policy for a better service delivery to the customer. If we there is competition in the market the smarter will provide a efficient service.
By
Srinivasan , Area Manager, Shriram Life Insurance Company Limited
| 05 09 2009 05:13:30 +0000
I also feel that this decision though may be of benefit in not increasing the competition for the existing companies but at the same time it is creating problems for them also. companies like Sistema-Shyam has already been awarded CDMA air waves across the country, DoT wants to put its application for a pan-India GSM licence on hold. This is because the company had applied for a GSM licence and spectrum only in March 2008, the note added. Another company that is likely to be impacted is Swan Telecom. Swan has already been issued GSM licences and spectrum in 13 circles and DoT has placed its request for CDMA spectrum. So I also feel that the govt. is not justified in this decision.
By
Radha Sundaram, Sales/BD Manager, Bharti Airtel
| 05 08 2009 06:29:49 +0000
|
