Lessons from Down Under

An article titled "Australia's Last Chance for Infrastructure Competition" describes failed opportunities as far as introducing competition in the wire line broadband market. This is said to be in stark contrast to the mobile telecoms segment where competition and innovation have flourished. The article states that the government is now looking to promote platform competition in high speed broadband.(HSBB)

I am always sufficiently wary of superimposing models from the developed world on to the Indian telecoms scenario because apart from many other aspects, regulatory structures and capacities and penetration levels are different, but I do believe that we can learn something from their experience.

I have written earlier under the same labels as this post in favour of a technology neutral and multi-operator, approach to high speed broadband penetration in India. Getting NOFN / BBNL off the ground in my view would be a Herculean effort whose success in the near future if at all is doubtful. The earlier USOF approach of tendering out region-wise HSBB network projects would work much better as it would allow many operators other than the incumbent to participate. Investment and innovation would take off and the roll out would be much quicker bringing much needed broadband to our young aspiring population,especially in rural India.

Previous USOF OFC schemes suffered from flaws such as overspecialization of technology but had several progressive features such as mandatory open access and even allowing the selected Universal Service Provider to complete the project by renting  bandwidth from existing players to  (rather than necessarily laying fresh OFC). USOF India needs to think beyond PSU led nation wide OFC networks if we are to progress. A technology mix in wire line broadband would be welcome. Please see my previous posts in this regard.

Letting the Market Function

A  very  thoughtprovoking paper on Broadband in USA highlights the power of innovation, genuine competition and  allowing markets to grow and cater to demand sans unnecessary regulation.
Its conclusions are reproduced below. They suggest avoidance of overenthusiastic tinkering in markets through market distorting regulation and subsidies. Most of these would be equally important in any context whether we talk about the developed or developing world except perhaps that in many developing countries supply side problems are far more prevalent

America’s broadband networks have allowed the United States to become a leading digital econ­omy. Building on a sound broadband foundation and leveraging the advantages of America’s inno­vation ecosystem have allowed American firms to export their digital goods and services to other countries, making the digital sector America’s third-largest category of exports after industrial supplies and capital goods. Policymakers should take the following steps to ensure that the United States continues to be the leader in global competitiveness:

In order to maximize investment, avoid utility-style regulation. Instead, focus on market-based, technology-neutral approaches that encourage dynamic competition with different networks and technologies.
Avoid subsidies for any particular technology: a variety of broadband technologies keep the market competitive. Government involvement in the broadband market may cause private firms to exit, stifling growth in the industry.
Permit competition-enhancing consolidation of broadband companies because mergers lower overhead costs and make operations more efficient.
Remove barriers to mobile infrastructure at the local level. Municipalities often hinder the deployment of infrastructure, which limits broadband competitors, particularly in rural areas.
Focus on increasing Internet adoption rather than the deployment of network. More than 80 percent of Americans use the Internet, and those who do not cite lack of usability and relevance as their primary reasons rather than cost or lack of access.

Messing up the Market Efficiency Gap in a Hope to Address the Actual Access Gap

Readers may please refer to my earliest posts about the Market Efficiency Gap and my recent one titled "Going around in Circles"

Somewhere along the past decade, USOF India has lost its way and we have come back full circle to thinking of relying on roll out obligations to achieve desired levels of rural teledensity. The proposition of Department of Telecommunications (DoT) that future spectrum auctions be designed to include  rural roll out obligations (as per a news item in Economic Times ) displays a complete lack of appreciation of the concept of USFs and the failure of roll out obligations in the past. All we will achieve is distortions in the spectrum allocation process. 

How exactly are the operators to find funds to fulfill the mandatory roll out obligations in areas which are obviously not commercially viable? Were they waiting only for a diktat from DoT all this while? What if they bid lower for spectrum to compensate for this additional cost and then circumvent roll out as in the past? Why should only spectrum winners (of this future auction) be considered as prospective suppliers of services to meet the gap?Well designed USOF schemes can provide the required (financial) incentive to any operator without creating unnecessary market distortions. This thinking by DoT is perhaps indicative of the inability of USOF India to fulfill its mandate and this malady has been the subject matter of many of my previous posts.

Self Help in rural areas-How Long can They Wait for Internet

An inspiring and at the same time saddening news item in the Times of India today describes how NGOs are helping rural folk especially in remote parts of the country like the state of Jharkhand connect to the internet. This involves training locals to rig up and maintain local networks. The connectivity is not very high speed and relatively expensive, but it is working and helping local businesses.

The sad part is that  USOF India has not been able to utilize its sizable resources to empower those who want to and can provide rural broadband like these niche operators, but instead is channelizing all its efforts and funds into huge incumbent centric projects broadband which are either under performing or not performing. A USOF wire line broadband project has rolled out less than a third of mandated number of connections. The connections under this project were to be available to rural pubic at a fraction of the cost of the locally set up networks described above, thanks to USOF subsidy. Also public access broadband facilities have not been set up properly / at all defeating the purpose of the project. Optic fibre connectivity through NOFN / BBNL is badly delayed. There has been a very apparent move away from bidding which is required by the USOF Rules to handing over projects on nomination basis. Curiously, this problem seems to arise from bureaucratic  fear of the implications of dealing with private sector (on account of vigilantism by vested interests) rather than on a sound socioeconomic basis including public good.

Its time for USOF to rescue itself from such distortions. As it is, there have been several demands from industry to scrap the Fund which is based on contributions portion of license fee) of operators. A more thorough ex ante policy / programme analysis including competition related vetting is the need of the hour.

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.

US Regulation in a liberalized environment

An interesting article titled "As Regulatory Power Wanes, State Crafts New Telecom Plan" about the state of Vermont captures the problem of achieving Universal Service (US)  in an advanced, competitive and liberalized without making typical public investment mistakes and in my view underlines the importance of US Regulation.

The article points out that when much of what the telecommunications sector does is de-regulated the government has only investment as a tool to achieve the desired level of penetration. However, it cautions against the government getting involved in the following quote:

“The danger, of course, when government gets involved in these kinds of investment activities, is: Is government going to put money in the right places?”

My answer would be to better define government's role and methodology within the regulation of US so that public interventions don't end up doing more harm than good. 

Adopting Open Access Models

Today's newspaper carries a report about USOF India's project to provide mobile towers in naxalite affected areas. This project is being implemented by the incumbent PSU BSNL on nomination basis. The report states that BSNL is soon to finalise its tender for equipment which is being sourced from indigenous manufacturers.

I have written earlier on this topic in my post, "USOF India's Scheme for Mobile Towers in Disturbed Areas" under the label USOF India and mentioned that this project could have  been awarded based on  bidding basis as there is no information in the public domain that indicates that private operators were unwilling to compete for such a project.

In my view, competitive neutrality is possible even when security concerns are paramount and viability is non-existent in the short to medium run. 

Bidding could have been carried out for setting up and running of the sharable mobile towers at hundred percent government cost (as is being done in this case)  for a predeclared period covering at least the the life of the towers. Thus the company setting up the tower would be fully compensated for its costs and (possible) lack of tenants/customers. 

Additionally, the possibility of (other/multiple) service providers being willing to compete in the access segment could have been explored. The  underlying condition could have been the requirement for the infrastructure providing operator to provide non-discriminatory access to licensed mobile service providers. The latter would be enabled to  hoist their antenna on this tower free of cost and provide access to customers in this region. This would bring in competition both from economy in use of public funds (assuming that at present USOF would necessarily bear the cost of service provision by BSNL too) and from choice for customers.

Given that some of these areas may not attract service providers even with rent free passive infrastructure being in place, BSNL could have been asked by the government to be the provider of last resort on towers where no service provider came forth with due compensation.

Such a scheme would require more effort on the part of USOF in terms of design and implementation. It would however be worth the effort as it would lay the ground for access competition in in the medium to long run if not short run even in thsi disturbed region.

There is a need to learn from past experience regarding the easy option of monopoly service provision, especially when public funds are used.

Infrastructure Regulation and the Market Efficiency Gap

An article caught my eye today. It is titled "Biting the Silver Bullet" in the Economic Times and is about the need to improve regulation of infrastructure (utilities) which speaks of dismantling superfluous ministries and concentrating on strengthening regulatory institutions in India and doing it now when a (political) revolution of sorts is underway and change is perhaps possible. Significantly he points out the need to improve infrastructure rather subsidize services to make them accessible to all.

Personally I believe that much of the lag in telecom penetration in India is the consequence of poor regulation especially in the fixed line segment. There is a pressing need to undo some of the competitive neutrality issues in USOF regulation too. 

My views on this subject can be seen in posts under Market Efficiency Gap and Competition

The NBN Debate Continues-Lessons for India's NOFN?

It is reported that an independent review of NBN ordered by the new Coalition Government of Australia has found that NBN costs and time lines have been understated and revenues overstated.

The news report states that,

"'The  full cost of Labor's original National Broadband Network plans would blow out by $29 billion and be completed three years late, the strategic review has found.

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull released details of the review he started 60 days ago on Thursday.The review found the fibre-to-the-premises NBN under Labor would have cost $73 billion, $29 billion more than forecast, and not be completed until 2024.It also found the current NBN Co corporate plan had overestimated revenues from the network by $13 billion.While the review found the cost and timing of the original plans would blow out, Opposition communications spokesman Jason Clare challenged the review's findings.He released an internal government analysis of the Coalition's plans, which he said revealed the new government's plans were "the wrong approach", and would not achieve the promised speeds.

Mr Turnbull has pledged download speeds of 50mbps by 2019 under the Coalition's plan, which will rely on copper connecting to fibre nodes, rather than brining the higher-speed fibre direct to all homes.

But Mr Clare said the analysis should the two stage approach - with 25mbps promised by 2016, expanding to 50mbps by 2019 - was unworkable.

He said the government's fibre-to-the-node plan would lower revenues from the network by 30% and the actual cost of fixing the existing Telstra-owned copper network, and was "unknown".

But Mr Turnbull said the review found the Labor network was "never achievable", and the results of the review would be "a crucial input into government policy".

Clearly the debate can go on forever. Nevertheless a mid term policy/projectreview and corrective steps are a good idea for any ambitious national broadband network roll out. India's NOFN/BBNL is already in difficulties. Ironically though it is being heavily subsidized because it is supposed to be financially nonviable and the PSU SPV route was chosen to cut red tape in Right of Way and other such causes of delay; the three PSU implementation partners in charge of this project are now citing the very same reasons for their difficulties and delays. Time for a review of costs and revenue projections and last but not lease scheme design? 

A Historic Pact or Something to Worry about?

Newspaper articles are hailing a historic infrastructure sharing pact  between two telecommunications bigwigs namely Bharti Airtel and Reliance Jio.This will reportedly  include optic fibre network – inter and intra city, submarine cable networks, towers and internet broadband services. The Times of India reports that,

"The cooperation is aimed at avoiding duplication of infrastructure, wherever possible, and to preserve capital and the environment. This will also provide redundancy in order to ensure seamless services to customers of the respective parties,"...."In future, the arrangement could be extended to roaming on 2G, 3G and 4G, and any other mutually benefiting areas relating to telecommunication, including but not limited to jointly laying optic fibre or other forms of infrastructure services. ..The pricing would be at 'arm's length', based on the prevailing market rates,"

While infrastructure sharing sounds good in theory, my worry is the lack of competition oversight when such agreements are entered into. Where is the ex ante scrutiny to ensure that other operators/subscribers are not put to disadvantage by such agreements among giant service providers which could easily have a detrimental impact on  competition in  end user service delivery. 

Competition and the PSU Incumbent

For the first time in the history of competition regulation in India, the Competition Regulator of India or Competition Commission of India has penalised a public sector monopolist (Coal India Limited)  for abuse of dominant position (in supply of dry fuel). A news item titled,  "'CCI slaps Rs.1,773 cr penalty on CIL" tells us that,

"As per CCI, CIL and its subsidiaries have been found to be “imposing unfair/discriminatory conditions in fuel supply agreements (FSAs) with the power producers for supply of non-coking coal.” Such conditions violate fair trade norms. Apart from issuing a cease and desist order against Coal India and its subsidiaries, the CCI has directed modification of FSAs. Besides, the regulator has asked the company to consult all the stakeholders for making the modifications in the FSAs. In recent times, CIL has drawn flak for fuel shortages that have been hurting power generation.

This is a positive step as much of what ails the Indian economy arises from monopolies in critical (input) sectors." We need to keep an eye on this aspect as far as telecommunications go too. 

Competition & Consumer Welfare-Infrastructure Provision

I salute the contents of two interesting news items from the Business Standard dated December 7, 2013. The first is titled "Try and Introduce Competition". It suggests that the dismantling of the government monopoly in power supply in New Delhi and replacing it by three area wise private sector monopolies has not sufficiently addressed consumer welfare and that we also need competition in each sub market for lower tariffs and quality of service rather than expecting the present regulated prices to substitute competitive markets. 

The second is a report on an interview with the Civil Aviation Minister and its title says its all- "I am not Minister for Air India." The article tells us that the Minister when questioned about his promotion of private competition made it clear that his job is consumer welfare rather than protection of the public sector incumbent. 

It would be good if the telecom sector were to recover from their past follies and pick up a cue rather than blunder ahead in a manner that harms competition. This is especially so when it comes to public funding/Universal Service. 

Reassuringly Sensible Approach to Future Regulation

It was good to read a press release titled, "ECTA Regulatory Conference - Competition should remain at the heart of EU telecoms regulatory policy." I reproduce it (verbatim) below as it is in my view a very significant post.What is particularly important is to not let political compulsions or economic downturns allow a movement away from competition and towards monopoly as incumbents would like. This is especially important as the arguments against competition in the era of NGN sound very similar to those propagated by interested parties in the eral of fixed line services before mobile services proved them wrong. Telecoms are always going to be subject to disruptive technologies and to be lulled into thinking that competition can harm or than monopoly is inevitable or desirable in view of the pressing need for universal broadband or in view of declining profit margins would be shortsighted.

This argument applies equally well to developing countries. In India, a short phase of  cut throat competition in the mobile voice segment caused by faulty policies of the recent past (ending with cancellation of licenses) and a sudden resurgence of faith in public rather than private sector for rural roll outs (owing to a beleaguered bureaucracy facing the aftermath of a phase of crony capitalism)  is leading many to the wrong conclusions.

The post reads as follows:

"European policy makers, regulators, key players from the telecoms industry and other stakeholders meet for three days under the auspices of ECTA to discuss pressing issues for the telecoms sector, including the recent European Commission proposal on the telecoms single market.With high level speakers, including Vice-President Neelie Kroes, the ECTA Regulatory Conference will address a plethora of issues ranging from net neutrality, data protection and consumer protection to regulation, competition, market structure, investments, the review of relevant markets and spectrum harmonization.

The implementation of a genuine single market for telecoms ranks high on the EU agenda, as does the role that regulation should play going forward. This conference will promote an open debate on the challenges the sector is facing and provide the opportunity to discuss how regulation can continue ensuring that tangible benefits are delivered by the EU’s pro-competitive framework and maintained in an NGA setting.

Tom Ruhan, Chairman of ECTA said "This conference is a great opportunity to stop and think. Alarming misconceptions regarding the state and performance of the sector and the role of regulation could divert the EU from a competition and end-user friendly path. We must not forget that competition has proven to be the best driver for efficient investments and also acknowledge the key role played by competitors in driving innovation and affordable prices for users (consumers, businesses and public administrations) as well as network investments. The immense benefits associated with open and competitive telecoms markets must not be undone by attempts to push for premature de-regulation. The review of relevant markets is particularly important in this regard. Regulation should also not be used to give a hand to those dominant companies, which have failed to take the necessary business decisions to adapt to a data centric world and now want to reduce competition instead of correcting their mistakes. Using regulation to implement the wrong industrial policies is a no-go.”

Erzsebet Fitori, Director of ECTA said “Experience has shown that ‘two is not enough competition’ for European consumers. More than ever we need pro-competitive policies, which recognise that regulation of the fixed infrastructure remains an essential competition enabler in an NGA environment and that investments are fostered and not hindered by competition. We must ensure that regulation remains neutral to whoever invests.”

The pro-competitive principles enshrined in the EU Regulatory Framework, namely the need to promote market liberalization and ensure open access to infrastructure, have been regarded outside EU borders as “best-practice”.[1] Indeed access based regulation - namely to physical access products of dominant operators - has played a key role in ensuring that new entrants are able to enter the telecoms markets, climb the ladder of investment, start rolling out their own networks and take the driver’s seat when it comes to NGA broadband deployment.[2] The need to make available, across all EU Member States, fully equivalent and fit-for-purpose wholesale access products, at a fair price and tailored to the needs of business services, is all the more necessary in the transition to NGA.

The development of a true single market depends on the genuine barriers being tackled, not on meeting demands of dominant operators for intervention aimed at reducing competition. Premature de-regulation or the implementation of unfit regulation must therefore be outright prevented. The upcoming review of relevant markets will have a fundamental role to play in this regard."

Wi Fi Internet for Indian Village Local Government Offices-Going Around in Circles?

A news item in the Times of India (November 30, 2013)  titled "Govt clears internet wi-fi plan for rural India" states that a proposal to provde wi-fi hotspots and internet connections to India's Gram Panchayats has recently been approved. Slated to cost Rs 37.5 billion and targeted to be completed by 2016, the project will be funded by Indian USOF and will ride on NOFN infrastructure, 

This may be an excellent idea with two caveats. 

One is that past experience has shown that telecom services in Panchayats tend to be used only by the rural elite and are unavailable to the common people. During USOF inspections I have seen private public calling offices doing roaring business whereas the USO funded village public telephone located in the village panchayat (local self government office) bang opposite, on the other side of the village mud track was being exclusively used by the local elite. Villagers were in fact unaware of this state funded facility. Thus, given the social and economic set up of Indian villages such facilities could encourage better data keeping and connectivity within the government set up but are likely to percolate to rural society at large. The village school may have been a better venue for such a facility if empowering the common people is the aim, but then more effort would be involved in managing, maintaining and manning the facility. I have written before about the need to look at various other facets of the demand side eco-system. You need applications and trainers/facilitators in rural India. This requires a multi-stakeholder approach to project design. A good and successful example is USOF's Sanchar Shakti.

My second concern is who is providing the last mile service. I hope it is not NOFN. The entry of NOFN into access segment would in my view negate the very idea of Universal Service as a modern mechanism in a liberalized sector as being different from state owned monopoly service provision. Please see my previous articles in this regard under the same labels.

USOF India-Problem of Plenty

My last post suggested that perhaps USOF India needs to consider a review of regulation to ensure a level playing field. It should not become a another channel for funding the incumbent operator. The idea of the Universal Service Levy was in the nature of pay or play i.e. it would go back to those operators who participated in rural roll out. However the exception of funding the PSU incumbent by nomination rather than designing schemes for tendering is becoming the norm and private operators continue to expand their rural market share at the cost of the incumbent at their own cost!

A news item titled "USO Fund: Higher levy, lower allocation" bemoans the rising collection of USL and quotes an operator association (GSMA) as follows:

“[The USOF} needs to align the funding demands made on operators with its funding needs and with the financial state of the operators, seeking alternative funding sources where appropriate. It also needs to develop clear, transparent policies that are aligned with defined short- and mid-term milestones. USO policies should also focus on needs not met by markets,” 

Of course the NOFN project shall take up the lion's share of accumulation of USL and this project given on nomination basis to a SPV of three PSUs is already showing the typical signs of time and cost overruns. 

BBNL and Competition Neutral Broadband Funding

The Economic Time reports that BBNL(NOFN) which is at present an infrastructure provider may acquire a unified license and become a service provider. This broadband network funded by USOF India was to provide OFC connectivity to 2.5 lakh village panchayats (local self government offices) up to block level as private operators were not likely to cater to this market segment.

It is reported that,

"The government is looking to "revise BBNL's mandate" as it wants it to directly deliver high-speed broadband services down to the district level to maximise utilisation of NOFN infrastructure, which is the communications ministry's biggest telecom venture.

The immediate plan is use the NOFN resources to build a "government-user overlay network" — akin to a virtual private network — for delivering a host of citizen-centric e-services to bridge the digital divide across rural India.

The DoT has proposed joint funding of the "proposed overlay network" by the Universal Services Obligation Fund (USOF) and the ministry of rural development. It wants USOF to handle the entire upfront capex payout — pegged at Rs 3,750 crore — and the rural development ministry to handle opex over a 10-year span - estimated at about .`1,860 crore a year - putting the total cost at Rs crore, excluding taxes."

In my previous posts on National Broadband Plans and incumbent centric, public funded Broadband Networks I have highlighted the importance of competition and avoidance of market distortions or recreation of monopolies. I believe that if BBNL were to complete roll out and the government was to focus on            e-government services (applications), a host of private and public sector telecom service providers would step in to provide last mile connectivity for broadband enabled services on commercial considerations.

In fact it has recently been reported that India has croseed the billion mark as far as e governance transactions go. Also that, "[w]ith more parts of the country getting connected through the National Optic Fibre Network, industry watchers expect more citizens to be accessing government services over the internet. ... The network has been launched in pockets of Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Tripura, with some 80,500 transactions already recorded."

Committing to Consumer Friendly Regulation in Africa

A news item about the  first conference of African telecoms regulators on consumer affairs in Lagos tells us that regulators from Nigeria, South Africa and Ghana etc. stressed upon protecting and promoting consumer interests.

The article states that the conference was attended by telecoms regulators from South Africa, Ghana, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Cameroun, Liberia, Rwanda, Benin Republic, Malawi, Angola, Sudan, Uganda, among other African countries and [It acted ]as a platform to bring together, African telecoms regulators and subscribers, to discuss common regulatory interest that will further enhance telecoms growth across Africa...Major issues raised at the conference, were multiple taxation imposed by governments in the various African countries, as well as unsolicited promo text messages that hit the subscribers' phones every minute."

Interestingly the Ghana Regulator is quoted as follows,

"...good regulation promotes competition in the provision of electronic communications networks, services and associated facilities; contribute to the development of the internal market, the interests of consumers; apply objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate regulatory principles; and promote technological and service neutrality.........

....too much regulations amounted to a “hidden tax,” because the costs of conforming to the regulations were passed on to the consumer in terms of higher costs. he explained that too many regulations might inject uncertainty into the marketplace, making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses."

I could not agree more.

Basic Broadband Now Universally Available Across Europe

As per an EC press release, Europe has achieved 100% coverage as far as basic broadband goes.

"Vice President of the European Commission, Neelie Kroes, today welcomed the milestone achievement of one of the main goals of the Digital Agenda for Europe:

“My motto is Every European Digital – now every European genuinely has the opportunity. We have more to do to improve networks and equalise the opportunity, but the opportunity is there.”

"Thanks to the extra coverage provided by satellite broadband, we have achieved our 2013 target of broadband for all. That's a great result for European citizens.

How we got to 100 % coverage?
Fixed (ADSL, VDSL, cable, fibre, copper) 96.1%
Mobile (2G, 3G, 4G) 99.4%
Satellite 100%

By the end of 2012, 99.4% of EU household had access to basic fixed or mobile broadband coverage; including 96.1% of households in rural areas. But the final 0.6% (or roughly 3 million citizens) included many families and businesses in isolated or rural areas where fixed or mobile broadband rollout is more cumbersome and expensive."

Going further,

"The Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE), has set a goal to make every European digital and ensure Europe's competitiveness in the 21st century. Essential to this goal is fast connectivity and the DAE broadband targets:

basic broadband for all by 2013;[achieved]
Next Generation Networks (NGN) (30 Mbps or more) for all by 2020;

50% of households having 100 Mbps subscriptions or higher"

 It is true that public funding has played a major role in these achievements but it is noteworthy that the same is subject to careful ex ante scrutiny to avoid market distortions that can harm the sector in the long run. I am of the opinion that India has a lot to learn from the EU's regulations in this regard.

Broadband Market in India

It is reported that,

"BSNL [with 9.97 million broadband subscriber[s] with continues to lead the table of top five internet service providers followed by Bharti Airtel (1.43 million), MTNL (1.10 million), Hathway (0.37 million) and You Broadband (0.32 million) till the month of July.

According to the data released by  the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), total broadband subscriber base in the country has increased from 15.19 million at the end of June 2013 to 15.24 million at the end of July 2013.

“This is a monthly growth of 0.33%. Yearly growth in broadband subscribers is 3.79% during the last one year (July 2012 to July 2013)”, it said. "

That for a country of 1.2 billion this broadband penetration is negligible and that the market is far from competitive is evident. Please see my previous posts on this issue such as,

-There is More to Broadband than Physical Infrastructure,

-Avoiding the Recreation of Monopolies in the Age of Superfast Broadband,

-Continuously Declining Wire Lines in India,

-Access Regulation as Important as nationwide Backhaul

and many others under the labels USOF India and Broadband Networks