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.

Tags: 1Mbps, Airtel, Appeal, Appellate Authority, author, Bharti Airtel, Broadband, Broadband access, HTML, Internet, Telecommunications India, TRAI

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!!!

Tags: Advertisement, Appeal, Appellate Authority, author, Broadband, DTH, Idiots, Internet, Telecommunications India, TRAI, Wireless

It was a big long drawn fight against Vodafone Essar India. I have documented this here, here and here. I want to fight for the next level of transparency in the sector because information is not flowing in freely and it is a big hassle to know about the status of the complaints.

I have already documented that each operator needs to file a compliance report with TRAI every quarter including the action taken on the same. I had to push the company to act based on the threats sent as I insisted that they be made public using RTI. It was a “threat” alone which did the trick.

Further, the nodal officer and the appellate authority system doesn’t seem to be working because they are company officials. Even though it is mandated that all complaints be addressed in a time bound manner, it doesn’t happen so. What is the way out?

Department of Telecom is going through it’s own hassles with CBI raids in connection with the huge telecom scam related to auction of spectrum. I don’t foresee anything coming out of it (nor it’s worth reporting here) because it is just political arm twisting. Those officials are useless anyway; in that case, DoT is out of question.

That only leaves us with the option of TRAI and the idea that it needs to be more proactive in enforcing it’s own regulations. This calls for a concerted action against the errant officials because the companies are focused only on customer acquisition and not customer retention. Mobile number portability MIGHT change the service scenario a bit but I am being cynical about it because the exit and the entry barriers would be unfair to customers; unless the ensuing events prove me wrong. The charges for plan migration have yet not been defined; we as customers should demand a “pro-customer” outlook and not whims and fancies of fat cats dictating terms to both Government and Media.

On a happy note, the network coverage in my premises has vastly improved in all areas of building making it a hassle free experience. It took time and effort but it was worth it.

In the process, I learnt about the bad corporate ways too. And recounted it all here

Update (27/10/2009):
I got a call from the Vodafone Network people asking me to send across a mail of “appreciation” for the “good work” that they have done!!

I countered that by asking them to send across the details of their CEO so that I could cc to them as well! Strange kind of assholes indeed!

Tags: Appellate Authority, Assholes, author, CEO, Department of Telecom, DoT, India, Media, Mobile, Mobile Number Portability, Opera, Pathetic vodafone, scam, Screw Vodafone, Spectrum, Telecommunications India, TRAI, Vodafone, vodafone Essar, Vodafone India, Vodafone sucks