Airtel & Vodafone India: Royally screwed!

Published on 12th Dec 2009 in Indian Telecom. 2 Comments

The incumbents had a cosy oligopoly. Their talk plans were similar with no real service differentiator. The new players have changed the equation with “per second plans”. The best part is, according to media reports, is that the monopoly of the COAI (the rag tag motley group of lame assholes) has been called into question.

Calling the COAI as “assholes” is only a reflection of the personal opinion brought about by frustration because of their intense lobbying to delay any customer friendly initiative. After the broadband thingy is sorted out, I would be pressing TRAI for any information to make the telecom companies more responsive. Plus, to find out as to why they permitted the minute plans as existed before and ask them for any compensation if not in monetary terms but force the companies for any excess talk time etc etc.

This maybe a loud thinking but then we should get our money’s worth. It took a lot of time to get Vodafone to work and improve upon their services.

Wait and watch. I feel that the best is about to begin as yet. Let’s wait for the mobile number portability and the magic. The ‘revolution’ my dear friends has come NOW.

TRAI: No response to appeal

Published on 12th Dec 2009 in Broadband in India and General Thoughts. 3 Comments

So far, I haven”t received a response. I am aware that the blog is unable to reach a majority of the Internet users; most of the potential customers also fail to check out the reviews for various ISP’s but then we are sorely limited by choice.

To me, it appears like a simple game. The “base” access is 256 kbps; anything over and above that is a “value added service”. I have no clue as to how the whole thing is priced but logic dictates that it is incremental profit for the telecom companies. The costs are fixed for “digging” up the roads, fixing up the telephone connections and if they are able to give an “error” free connection, people are loath to change their service providers in a jiffy. In any case, landlines are more reliable than a mobile connection because they are not prone for “congestion” or call drops as the case with the airwaves is.

TRAI has not addressed the customer claims so far. I remember the time when I had to struggle upfront against BSNL to start with “unlimited” connection. It was a long fight and after emailing them incessantly, I managed to get “true freedom”.

Right to Information Act has changed the game plan by giving the customer real power in terms of information. I have earlier mentioned that it is one of the most progressive legislation in the history ii independent India because the grass roots policy can be questioned to bring about a change. The appellate authority has 45 days to respond to the appeal failing which I would be escalating the matter to CIC, New Delhi and press for charges against the respective Information Officers.

I would have been happy had this case got the media scrutiny and then bring TRAI on the mat and screw them LITERALLY. For long, we have suffered enough lobbies because it doesn’t suit them. Trust me, we have enough bandwidth to support millions of ‘unlimited connections’ but are at the mercy of the likes of ISP’s like Sify and Airtel. Those associations have money, legal power and reach in the media. We as individual customers, don’t.

I find the idea to “petition” totally useless. If anything has to happen in democracy, one has to reach out to do something. Clicking on the petition is a SURE SHOT sign that you are a f***ing impotent asshole. This “clickitivism” does nothing because these petitions are as good as useless. If you are so overtly concerned about your rights, it’s a better option to hurl some stones outside their corporate offices after ganging up. Or protest outside naked with a group of people. That would generate more news rather than sitting on your sorry ass for want of doing ’something’.

I appreciate all of your concerns and do stay glued here for any news. I shall update it as soon as I get any information.

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.

TRAI: Response to RTI application

Published on 22nd Nov 2009 in Broadband in India, Other Frustrated Customers, Right to Information Act and TRAI. 0 Comments

This was disappointing to say the least. It was expected from a regulator which is staffed by nincompoops. Let’s merit their response to the various points I had raised.

1) To the definition of broadband, TRAI maintains that they have adopted the ‘minimum’ definition of International Telecom Union (ITU) as the speed. Let’s see the context in which the definition of ‘broadband’ has been adopted in their “vision document”

Many people associate broadband with a particular speed of transmission or a certain set of services, such as digital subscriber loop (DSL) or wireless local area networks (wLANs). However, since broadband technologies are always changing, the definition of broadband also continues to evolve. Today, the term broadband typically describes recent Internet connections that range from 5 times to 2000 times faster than earlier Internet dial-up technologies. However, the term broadband does not refer to either a certain speed or a specific service. Broadband combines connection capacity (bandwidth) and speed. 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)”.

So there is NO question of this being ‘256 kbps’ as is the current ‘definition’ of Broadband as we know it.

2) TRAI does not define the meaning of the term ‘fair usage policy’ or ‘unlimited internet’. This means that everything which is being advertised is against it’s rules and does not have the sanction of the regulator. To my question of taking action against the advertisement of such claims, TRAI is silent.

3) TRAI in it’s RTI application only mentioned about the various tariffs that need to be reported to it about 5-7 days in advance before they are introduced in the market. The tariffs are under “forbearance” and TRAI has no rule in framing the various tariff plans. But does it act when there are only a few players in the market? Does it act against the established oligopolies?

TRAI cannot deny me the information; I am filing a repeat RTI and also appealing against the the present reply to the appellate authority.

The fight against the established players and lobbies continues. The first step is to actually commit these idiots to “change the definition of broadband” from measly 256kbps to a bare minimum of 2Mbps as per the definition of ITU.

LETS SCREW THEM!!!

TRAI: Filed for RTI application regarding Broadband

Published on 09th Nov 2009 in Right to Information Act. 3 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

Here is the text of the email, fax and the registered post sent to TRAI regarding various issues related to Broadband.

To,
The Central Public Information Officer
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Old Minto Road,
New Delhi-110 002
Tele: 011-23211622
Fax: 011-23213294

E-mail: ap@trai.gov.in

Sub: Application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for information relating to Broadband Internet, Fair Usage Policies and pricing mechanism.

Dear Sir,

I am a citizen of India, and I request you to kindly provide me with the following information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with regards to information relating to Broadband Internet, Fair Usage Policies and pricing mechanism.

1)Why the definition of “broadband” has been kept at 256kbps and not subject to revision for higher speeds? Is there a proposal to re-define the speed of broadband access? If yes, kindly provide the details of the file, notings and objections if any received from Internet Service Providers. The same to be provided in writing by way of certified photocopies.

2)What is the meaning of the term “unlimited internet”?

3)What is the meaning of the term FAIR USAGE POLICY? Has this been put up or suggested by TRAI? If yes, what is the basis for the introducing such a policy? Has the cross section of the user base been consulted before implementing such a policy?

4)Does fair usage policy violate any of the provisions of TRAI?

5)If it does, what action can be taken against errant Internet Service Provider?

6)Has any Internet Service Provider been ever penalised for violating for introducing “fair usage policy”?

7)Do the Internet Service Providers provide details to TRAI about their various broadband plans?

8)If yes, 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?

9) How has the tariff on unlimited broadband (1Mbps unlimited) being offered by Bharti Airtel fixed line been calculated?

I would be highly grateful if the above-mentioned information could be provided to me at my postal address within the statutory period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this application.

The requisite fee is being paid along with this application by way of postal order in favour of the accounts officer.

Should there be any additional fees chargeable as per the Act; the same may be communicated to me by e-mail or postal address with the required work up of the details as to how the increased charges are justified and how you have arrived at the calculation of the same.

Please rush the information to me by speed/registered post. If the information is not with you, please forward this application to appropriate PIO, under intimation to me. Please also provide me file notings and action taken report on this application along with your reply.

I sent them today with “Acknowledgement Due” from a post office with the requisite proof of having sent them the postal order. To my knowledge, they cannot feign ignorance; I would be following this up on a regular basis.

Here’s to the power of the people! I am bracing up for a big fight for sure.

3G India: Who needs it?

Published on 08th Nov 2009 in Indian Telecom. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , .

The following is the text of the email sent and an edited version appeared in Business Standard on 06/11/2009.

Dear Sir,

This refers to Shyam Ponnapa’s write up on BS dated 05/110/2009 (Managing Spectrum Efficiently).

The big question. Why do we need 3G? Why not focus on the land line business alone for broadband access? Or better still. Community Wifi?

The arguments for doing away with this are many. Community Wifi is deemed to be a security risk but then countries like Singapore have implemented this on a large scale nationwide. The mobile phones required to access 3G invariably have Wifi access too. Unless, the telecom companies are expecting surefire hits like Apple iPhones or flood of other smart phones to access the Internet, it is not happening.

We don’t have accurate numbers about the likes of Reliance and Tata who are offering their 3G access. If initial reports are to be believed, they are plagued by “line of sight” hassles, ‘network congestion’ and lackluster customer support. To top it all, it has the access limitations which means that broadband access, even on the 3G spectrum would be capped for very obvious reasons.

We have enough bandwidth in the country but as anyone would testify, we have problems in implementing the “last mile access”; having a contentious set of issues like 3G is not going to solve the persistent problem of “last mile access” because no one is interested in sinking money for a long term.

We can have a fair idea from the existing companies like Airtel or Vodafone who charge exorbitant rates under the present implementation of “mobile internet”. What is the guarantee that they would lower down the prices once they pay fancy sticker prices in 3G auction?

3G, would most likely be used for carrying more voice traffic because none of the players harbours any disillusionment about the “mobile broadband” across the length and breadth of the country.
The market for value added services is locked up within the “walled garden” of the existing players; it is unlikely that 3G access would “revolutionize” the content.

This pretty much sums up what I have always alluded here and my opposition to 3G remains.

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.