Archive for the 'Airtel' Category

Mobile number portability and TRAI: Suckers

Published on 29th Dec 2009 in Airtel, Digital Divide, General Thoughts, Indian Telecom and Mobiles. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

As per the media reports, the mobile number portability is delayed because BSNL and MTNL were not ready for it.

In any case, I am toying with the idea of filing a second RTI application but my attention is fixated on academics and it would be impossible to keep a track of the same. In case anyone among the readers feels motivated enough, please let me know through feedback on drapuri (at) gmail (dot) com and I would happily guide the way out including help with drafting of the application.

Trust me, you’d feel very happy with the process to move the sarkari machinery in motion to respond to you. The idea is to inundate these idiots with RTI applications and make them realize that their own regulations are being flouted.

The context of the RTI application should include pointed questions towards mobile number portability, relevant orders to the same, procedure outlined, whether the telecom operators are filing compliance reports, copies of those reports, penalties to be imposed on operators who delay, cause of delays and what action has TRAI taken to ensure compliance with the erring operators.

This is important because TRAI’s own rules are being flouted, mobile number portability would have benefited the incumbent operators and the biggest losers would have been the Government Operators. With delays in capacity expansion, BSNL is already loosing market share. But then, who cares?

The entry of private operators hasn’t really shaken up the market. With perhaps per second billing as the highlight of the year, there is nothing else to speak of. In any case, it would not result in “drastic savings” because of the complex interconnect and termination charges. We don’t really know how we are being scammed.

A further highlight of the proposed RTI application can be the break up of the call rates and the scope for reduction of the same. The operators are dependent on voice revenues to a large extent; data and VAS accounts for a growing percentage of revenues, but as per media reports, not good enough to impact the bottomline in any significant manner. Therefore, the scramble is on to protect the cash cow; at any cost because the customers can be MILKED.

The big question really is: How much profit is really profitable?

TRAI: Appeal against information to appellate authority

Published on 22nd Nov 2009 in Airtel, Airtel Broadband, Broadband in India, Digital Divide, General Thoughts, Indian Telecom, Other Frustrated Customers, Personal Experiences and Right to Information Act. 4 Comments

This gets interesting.

Having the useless information from the Public Information Officer, I explored ways and means to get the FULL information from TRAI.

It appears that there is a huge lobby to keep the definition of broadband as 256 kbps which can be “offered” at an attractive “price”. Anything over and above that is chargeable at a higher price. The companies incur a fixed price to extend the wire from the exchange to your premises. However, after that, we have no clue as to how a company, for example, Airtel justifies it’s monthly costs to service me as a customer. In the recent price fall, on what basis, the price was reduced? On what basis, the earlier price point was maintained?

The PIO has not specifically mentioned about the fair usage policy. Under no circumstances, does this fair usage policy apply, nor it is mandated, nor it is ‘legal’. I have no clue about whether TRAI is aware of such a thing but in any case, it needs a follow up and TRAI should be forced to stop the unfortunate usage.

In the long term, the license of these firms needs to be made public; how these private companies acquire them, how they charge and what are their revenue sources. Their accounts need to be audited and everything should be in the public domain.

I am only interested in a bare bones 2 Mbps connection and any other value added service maybe charged for. That is a legitimate right to make a profit. However, charging exorbitant rates for something as simple as a plain vanilla broadband access is unfair and the customer needs to be put in the loop.

I am reproducing the mail to the appellate authority in full. The best part is that I don’t have to pay the requisite fees and I am sure that the PIO would be put under the mat. TRAI should exert itself as an authority and not a hand maid of the various lobbies. Lets fight them!

November 23rd 2009

To,

Smt. Sadhana Dikshit,
Pr. Advisor (FA &IFA) & Appellate Authorit,
TRAI, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,
Old Minto Road,
New Delhi-110 002.

Sub: Misleading, incoherent and incomplete reply received from PIO, Mr. P.K. Dutta vide letter No. 1(229)/2009-RTI dated 18th November 2009.

Respected Madam,

With reference to the above mentioned subject, the reply received from PIO Mr. P.K. Dutta is INCOMPLETE, INCOHERENT,ABSOLUTELY MISLEADING and NOT TO MY SATISFACTION AT ALL.

1) The definition of Broadband mentioned as per the letter is and I quote verbatim, “minimum speed of Broadband has been kept at 256 kpbs (sic) as per definition adopted by International Telecommunications Union(ITU).

After accessing the website of ITU, the picture is entirely different.
It says and I quote verbatim,” Recommendation I.113 of the ITU Standardization Sector defines broadband as a “transmission capacity that is faster than primary rate Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) at 1.5 or 2.0 Megabits per second (Mbits)”.
(Accessed from http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/publications/birthofbroadband/faq.html and accessed on 22nd November 2009).

Hence this information is INCORRECT AND MISLEADING a customer.

2)The question number “4, 5 and 6” in the letter to PIO dated 6th November have NOT been answered. I had specifically asked:

Does fair usage policy violate any of the provisions of TRAI?
If it does, what action can be taken against errant Internet Service Provider?
Has any Internet Service Provider been ever penalised for violating for introducing “fair usage policy?

NO ANSWERS WERE GIVEN SPECIFICALLY TO THESE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS and it amounts to WITHOLDING THE INFORMATION.
Further, If the usage of the term “FAIR USAGE POLICY” is ‘illegal’. What action has TRAI taken to notify the various Internet Service Providers to avoid the usage of term and it’s implementation for ‘reducing the speeds’ to 50%’ of the availed plan. The following definition of Fair Usage Policy is taken from Airtel available as a pdf download from their website (www.airtel.in/applications/xm/Fair_Usage_Policy.pdf)

“Under the policy we have defined fair usage levels for unlimited data transfer plans and
needless to mention, the usage levels set are very generous such that most customers will not
be affected by the Fair Usage Policy. On reaching the fair usage level, the plan speed would be rationalized by up to 50% for the restof the monthly billing cycle.”
IS TRAI AWARE OF SUCH A POLICY? WHAT ACTION HAS TRAI TAKEN TO AVOID THE USAGE OF THIS TERM?

3)Question number 8 in letter dated 6th November 2009 was specific and has NOT been answered to MY SATISFACTION, namely,
Has TRAI suggested reducing the price for various plan combinations?If yes, what is the base price fixed for an unlimited Internet Connection by any Internet Service Provider? If no, is there any provision whereby TRAI can act on behalf of the customer to reduce the prices?

I need to know whether TRAI speaks on behalf of the customers, whether TRAI asks the service providers about the break up of the various tariff plans as to under what head the various tariff plans are designed and on what basis the end customer is charged for availing the services of the various Internet Service Providers.

4)Question number 9 has NOT been answered at all namely, “ How has the tariff on unlimited broadband (1Mbps unlimited) being offered by Bharti Airtel fixed line been calculated?”

Please rush the information to me by speed/registered post at the following address listed below. In case the requisite information is not provided to me by the mandatory period, I have the option to escalate the matter to the second appellate authority namely CIC, New Delhi.

Indian Telecom: End of the boom?

Published on 08th Nov 2009 in Airtel, General Thoughts, Indian Telecom, Mobiles, Reliance, TRAI, Tata Communications, Telecom News, Vodafone India and Vodafone Sucks. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

This is what the headlines in Business Standard say. Let me highlight the relevant portions of the report for your eyes only:

Rising competition (13 licences for each circle), falling tariffs (lowest in the world, falling further because of per-second billing), rapidly declining average revenue per user (ARPU) because the newer subscribers are the low spenders in semi-urban and rural areas, and high taxes (about 30 per cent in all) ……….have put paid to the aspirations of not only the new entrants but also incumbents……..deleted.

Forget about fancy valuations. I have always contested the claim about the “lowest tariff in the world” because it is not in consonance with the actual “gini coefficient”; which means that we pay more than we can actually spend. It is a bitter truth but then the newspapers need a lifeline of their advertising spends, so rest assured, this truth will NEVER be out.

……Nearly 15 million more users came on board in September….. It has also brought into focus the phenomenon of dual SIMs — existing subscribers are acquiring additional connections, resulting in a seeming increase in subscribers but in fact merely leading to a bill being split between two or more service providers….Deleted.

For the first time, to my knowledge, a newspaper daily has mentioned this in black and white. Let me also repeat. The operators keep the discarded number for a period of atleast 3 months before it is “terminated”. So even though, a customer has left in the middle of month, the disconnection would not be reported for another 3 months (which, I believe is an industry practise). The same customer may acquire multiple connections or dual SIMS; so it is the growth of the SIM cards and perhaps not the customers which is reported. In any case, the simple headcount may not be feasible.

Industry executives blamed much of the ills on the government and the regulator. With falling tariffs, they need to cut costs, but their hands are tied because 35-40 per cent of their costs are taxes and other regulatory expenses. They have to pay 5 per cent of their revenue even from rural areas towards the universal service obligation fund which is meant to promote rural telephony. They said there was no need for the regulator to push for pay-per-second billing by all…… Deleted.

Now this is something that industry officials would always bleat about. Let them come out openly against the said “policies”…shadow fighting the Government wouldn’t help. For one simple reason. If these morons had any iota of service towards customers, I would have sympathized with them. But, they treat their customers like dirt; more so like crap cash cows who feeds in their kitties with little change so that likes of Mittal and his ilk can reap in obscene profits. In any case, let them prove their worth with their commitment to service, their willingness to be transparent, their approachability and customer care in the true sense of the term. People need their money’s worth but alas! My countrymen are basically lazy bastards who wish to have everything on platter without fighting for it.

…….the incumbents said they remain committed and focused on growth. “We will continue to enhance our market leadership and simultaneously open new revenue streams like m-commerce, m-entertainment, digital media and many other products……Deleted.

They have no real option but to focus on Value Added Services which is “babes, bikinis and bollywood”. Unless these people want to “focus” on phone sex services which would be a “high revenue earner” for them.

Rest of the write up seems to sum up the gloom and “brave words” just to reassure the shareholders that “we are up to it”. That we would weave our small little web of deceit, of lies and pull wool over the regulators and leave no stone unturned to defraud our customers because they are basically bunch of idiots and nincompoops. No one knows how much unaccounted for wealth flows in and out of system or whether this elaborate system allows them to launder their money in more effective way. There is no accountability to the customers because they are using a PUBLIC resource and merely by adding value to it doesn’t entitle them to the ownership of it.

Sadly, this isn’t mentioned anywhere. This of course, would be mentioned at all.