Fibre, Regulation & Competition

It may be noted that a common strain running throughout my blog is my concern with huge, national level roll out of incumbent centric state-sponsored fibre networks. In the enthusiasm for broadband and its inclusion as a key component of growth or stimulus plans, developed nations too seem to have relaxed their strict concern for competition or at least have had to modify competition/telecom regulation to accommodate these projects (NBN). Developing nations like India that have adopted a "me too" approach are perhaps even worse off for the lack of adequate regulation and almost complete lack of competition assessment at a policy and project level. (BBNL)

I have often warned that there would be problems ahead. Please see my posts under national broadband plans, broadband networks and competition and have suggested an alternative approach based on tendering and infrastructure sharing.

It is of interest that the fears surrounding fibre backhaul as a key, potentially bottleneck input are being articulated even in Europe with much more sophisticated regulation in place. These have led to plea for (re)regulation of access to especially backhaul owned by former fixed line incumbents.Please see the report on Vodafone lobbying for regulated fibre access,

Do we want to go back to the era of complicated (and often less than perfect) fixed line type of regulation or can we learn from the past?

Going Around in Circles?

The whole idea of universal service funds was that at least  theoretically they are considered to be a more transparent, targeted and efficient means of achieving universal service as compared to cross-subsidies, access deficit charges and roll out obligations. 

The Economics Times today reports that USOF, India is considering a reduction in universal service levy for operators that meet roll out targets. This is a flawed approach. 

Firstly roll out obligations in Indian licenses do not  and cannot ensure that specific rural areas (uncovered/.under-served) will be covered. They generally require coverage of a certain percentage of rural area in the licensed  service area or telecom circle and history has shown that the areas covered are those closest to cities/towns. Secondly, mere technical roll out cannot ensure universal individual/household access which requires inter alia affordability or accessibility of connections. A well designed USF scheme can achieve both these objectives.

 An overall reduction in Universal Service Levy based on assessed requirement of funds is a different matter but retaining/relying on roll out obligations as a means of achieving universal service when a universal service fund exists is not advisable. It is likely to increase the government's regulatory and administrative burden while defeating the purpose of the Fund.