NBN-Changes Ahead

Australia's Financial Review carries an article titled "Coalition mulls NBN Co split to speed construction"
The new government is considering creating two separate entities -one in charge of construction and the other,operations. This article stats that,

The proposal comes as the NBN rollout struggles to ramp up and meet its targets. Under Labor, the NBN rollout missed several key construction targets. NBN Co’s 2012 corporate plan forecast it would pass 359,000 homes and businesses with fibre by June 30, 2013, but it only reached 207,500 premises.

The delays were frequently blamed on labour shortages, planning issues and a range of other problems that resulted in dissatisfaction among unions, contractors and sub-contractors.

Leaked internal forecasts showed NBN Co was set to miss its target of connecting fibre-optic cabling to 1.13 million existing homes and businesses by June 30, 2014, by 273,065 premises.

Service Stream, one of the key companies building the NBN, reported a 672 per cent fall in net profit as it pulled out of the project.


My views on massive  incumbent-centric state sponsored broadband roll outs can be seen under the labels National Broadband Plans, Broadband Networks. I believe lack of competition is a major concern in such initiatives. 

Regulate in Haste Repent at Leisure-Comments from India and EU

I have used this title for another post  under the label Telecom Regulation, but I feel compelled to use it again.

 I read a very interesting article in the Financial Express yesterday. It is called, "A little less lazy pragmatism please" While its focus is monetary policy, it makes an interesting observation which applies across the board,

"In India, we have largely abandoned basing policy and reforms on theory and empirical evidence. Instead, we have chosen to justify badly structured ad hoc policy changes on pragmatism and reality."

It also states that,the label 

"...Only when policies are based on theory and empirics and not on the insiders' insistence on pragmatism does market efficiency increase."

I agree wholeheartedly with this thinking. I believe that In India policy making and regulation could benefit greatly from sound theoretical and empirical analysis rather than the current trend of short cuts and literally what the author of the above mentioned article calls "lazy pragmatism". Correcting this problem calls for greater role of subject specialists in policy making. They are in fact slowly being allowed into the Government regardless of a  bureaucracy who believe they are smart enough to manage anything through a common sense approach and don't a theoretical basis for their decision making. 

It is interesting to note that  BEREC, the body of European electronic communications regulators has come out in similar criticism of the European Commission's draft regulation on a single telecoms market. Please see my post titled "Bold Brave Telecom Reforms in EU."

They are quoted to have said that, they fear that these proposed reforms will be "rushed through the European legislature without proper explanation and full exploration of its potential consequences..... the proposals represent an aggregation of several unrelated measures, whereas the EU Framework is a complex regulatory ecosystem that should be approached as a coherent whole." It is said that "BEREC is concerned that the draft regulation will jeopardise the integrity of the EU framework and its achievements, in terms of investment, competition and consumer benefit."

Given that EU's regulatory framework for electronic communications is indeed an excellent one so far I would hope that they are not right. 

More about USOF India's Device Subsidy Scheme

The Economics Times today reports that the Telecom Commission of India has approved a Rs 50 billion scheme to provide subsidised mobile phones to specially identified beneficiaries in rural areas. the original proposal was to provide these to workers enrolled in the state funded MNERGA (employment guarantee scheme). However it now appears that a more detailed mechanism for identification of beneficiaries is to be determined. further, the TC has also raised objections about choice of the incumbent operator on nomination basis. These are in my view positive developments. Please see my comments under USOF India. The last post on this subject was titled, "Reactions to USOF India's Device Subsidy Schemes & the Confusion over Universal Service Funding"

Simple Solutions

An article titled "Mexico sees its first village cellphone network" on New Europe online caught my attention. It tells us about a village in Mexico where earlier the residents had to trudge to a community phone to make very expensive calls. Community phones are provided by big telecom operators.

However now,

"Using simple radio receivers, a laptop and relatively inexpensive Internet technologies, the people of the village have leapfrogged into the 21st century by setting up what amounts to their own mini-telecom company — one capable of handling 11 cellphone calls at a time at a small fraction of what they used to pay....in just six months, more than 720 residents have signed up to use the new system. Local calls made on off-the-shelf cellphones are free, and phoning relatives in Los Angeles costs just 20 centavos (1.5 cents) a minute. What's more, every subscriber has a distinct mobile number."

I remember a company approaching USOF India for funding a similar solution for inaccessible villages which could not be taken forward.In this case it appears that rather than look for formal funding, the village pooled money and with the help of a not for profit organisation they were able to set up this system.

Regulatory Tug of War

I found a post titled "Here’s how the telecom industry plans to defang their regulators" very interesting. In real world economics equilibrium is rarely stable. It is generally dynamic. So it would seem is the empowerment/dis-empowerment of a telecommunications regulator. 

In India, the Communications & IT Minister has criticized the Deptt. of Telecommunication's tendency to impose heavy penalties regardless of the nature of default by operators and has suggested that these powers be removed from bureaucrats and be given to TRAI. The TRAI is often at loggerheads with the Competition Regulator CCI, on jurisdiction. However, TRAI has recently come to the rescue of a  beleaguered telecom industry with its recommended reduction in reserve prices for spectrum. See "Regulate in Haste, Repent at leisure" under the label Telecom Regulation.

It would seem from the above mentioned post that USA's telecom giants want to remove/reduce FCC's powers to regulate issues relating to privacy, competition and net neutrality. While there motives are obviously their commercial interests, all these issues have an important bearing on consumer welfare which should be the primary concern of the sector regulator. Ex ante competition issues too would normally lie in its realm.

Bold, Brave Telecom Reforms in EU

With a view to boost investment and growth in electronic communications in the EU and with a view to serve customer interests better the European Commission has announced a new set of reforms for a connectec Europe. A post on this subject from International Business Times quotes the European Commission's telecoms chief Neelie Kroes as follows,

"Global competitors caught on to this long ago; Europe, once an ICT leader, is now lagging behind. Japan, South Korea and the USA combined have around the same population as the EU - but over eight times more fixed fibre broadband, and almost 15 times more 4G,"

The proposed legislation is reported to include:

Open internet - the proposals aim to enshrine net neutrality into law across the EU, meaning operators will no longer be allowed to block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific, content, applications or services, except in very limited, concretely defined cases.

Actual data speed - Operators will be obliged to provide clear information about the actual available data speed for downloads and uploads, including at peak-hours. If the actual speed the consumer receives is lower than the advertised speed, the operator will be considered to be in breach of their contract obligations.

Easier control of consumption - Consumers will be able to set how much they want to spend every month and once they hit 80% of this figure they will get a notification - also, detailed and itemised bills will be available free-of-charge.

End of roaming charges - The most high profile change being pushed through, the legislation could see the end of extra charges for making and receiving calls when you travel outside of your home country. While the proposals only seek to see the removal of charges for taking calls while roaming, they EC is also looking to get operators to promote "roam-like-at-home" offers where voice, SMS and data are all charged at the same rate while roaming within the EU.

The proposals will need approval from all 28 EU nations and the European Parliament if they are to become law, and if it does get approval the first changes are likely to take effect by July 2014.

While  these appear to be excellent reforms, it is also reported that the Industry [has] attack[ed these] EU telecoms reforms. Clearly roaming is a major source of revenue and their profits will take a hit. They warn against rising prices and less consumer choice as a consequence of these reforms. Small operators complain that roaming  reforms have been "watered down" on account of lobbying by big operators. There are also proponents of anti-net neutrality argument who plead that they should atleast be allowed to provide premium packages.

What I liked best was a quote from Stephen Howard, head of telecoms research at HSBC, “Politics is the art of the possible, and this initiative at last sets Europe on what we regard as a pro-investment course."

Reactions to USOF India's Device Subsidy Schemes & the Confusion over Universal Service Funding

I had written earlier about USOF's intended Mobile handset Scheme. While phones for voice alone may be unavailable to relatively few in rural areas, they may not be owned by women, aged and disabled. If we are aiming at smart phones for internet/broadband access, in my view, affordability of devices is a necessary but not sufficient condition for universalizing broadband access especially for rural India which has negligible broadband penetration. On the supply side, we also need good quality and affordable  connectivity (absent even in urban areas at present) and on the demand side we need locally relevant content in vernacular languages as well universal accessibility to cater to needs of disabled, illiterate and aged populations. My views on this subject may also be seen in previous posts on Broadband Ecosystem.

It has now been reported that 

"The Telecom Commission, the highest decision-making body in Department of Telecom (DoT), recently approved a proposal to give free mobiles to families in villages and tablet PCs to students in government schools that could cost the exchequer nearly Rs 10,000 crore.

The scheme is expected to benefit 2.5 crore individuals in rural households while the free tablet programme would cover 90 lakh students in 11th and 12th classes.It is to be jointly funded by the Department of Telecom and Universal Services Obligations Fund (USOF) – a fund to facilitate telecom services in rural areas. The project is proposed to be implemented through state-run BSNL which will float tenders for sourcing of mobile phones and tablets.The tablets will cost around Rs 4,972.5 crore, of which the USOF will fund 60 per cent and the remaining amount will be provided by DoT.Similarly, the mobile phone scheme, meant for mainly MGNREGA workers, is estimated to cost the government Rs 4,850 crore.The mobile phones and tablet PCs are proposed to come with a warranty of three years. Both the schemes are expected to start after March 2014. ..The tablet PC will be distributed in three phases where is first phase 15 lakh students will be covered, 35 lakh in second phase and 40 lakh in third phase. Under the proposed scheme, students will get tablets for duration of their studies at the school they are enrolled with.

The mobile phone scheme is proposed to cover 25 lakh beneficiaries in first year, 50 lakh in second, 75 lakh in third and 1 crore in fourth year. The mobile phone scheme, meant for mainly MGNREGA workers is likely to be completed over period of six years."

A critique of this initiative may be seen in a newspaper editorial titled "Honey Pot" It has criticized the Fund for being bureaucratic and tight fisted in the past but is also very critical of this scheme which is labeled as a populist measure at the cost of operators whose revenues go towards funding the subsidies. The argument is that the Fund should have been wound up to spare the operators the mandatory contributions to USOF so that they could provide rural services.

It is a fact that much of rural penetration has taken place outside the realm of USOF. I would be a bit wary of device subsidies unless they are restricted to the really deserving (socially/economically)and clearly under served such as rural women, aged and disabled. I would also fault the choice of the incumbent by nomination for almost every recent USOF endeavour. This goes against the letter and spirit of USOF Rules besides being anti competitive. (Read post on Competition for my views on the subject).

However, it is wrong to assume that if the USOF were scrapped operators would have with this money. It is in fact a part of their license fees and hence would be recovered any way. Neither would  they would cater to non viable market segments on their own even if no license fees (or universal levy) was recovered from them. US Funds are supposed to be a competitively neutral, transparent, targeted and hopefully minimal way of providing incentives to bridge the actual access gap. The concept has proven to be more effective than at least rural  roll out obligations in India. The problem arises when the Fund is not used in this ideal manner. This can be traced back to regulatory frameworks and underlying institutions but it is wrong to imagine  that markets can achieve universal service on their own.