There is a huge variance in the numbers being reported by different news papers. One of the major fall out of mobile number portability is that you can spite your existing telecom operators face; if you are a high value post paid customer, it would be worth it.

We would never know the true numbers because they would be under reported. DoT would not get in the game and the right from the word go, everyone is claiming that mobile number portability is a no show. I disagree. This is one the huge game changers in the long run and once the hoopla settles down, it’s best to switch providers. I would want something like Google Voice (one number) and get rid of the crap services but I am destined to suffer at their hands.

This also means that I have the full freedom to shift over to rival networks who would provide a better seamless coverage for that occasional data access.

Business Standard has a full page story on this issue It says:

The biggest loser was Reliance Communications (both GSM and CDMA), followed by state-run Bharat Sanchar Nigam and Tata Teleservices (CDMA and GSM). Reliance lost 9,837 users, while 192 chose to join its network..

So, no one likes Reliance Telecom. Anil Ambani, here’s one for you; how not to run a damned network.

Industry experts feel MNP will not be a game-changer. Even operators are not expecting the churn due to MNP to be more than one per cent, as against the current rate of four-five per cent. This is based on their experience in the Haryana circle, where MNP was launched in December. Haryana has seen a churn of about one per cent.

Where the F these experts come out from? They are either some way side idiots or “consulting firms”; would the news paper please stand up to explain who are these experts who have been quoted?

An overtly maniacal Government now wants a lawful interception of video calls on 3G networks.

The blurb:

There were problems in interception facilities of video calling on 3G services, which needs to be addressed before the launch. The operators have said monitoring facility of video calls was not available anywhere in the world and the operators were talking to vendors to find out a solution.

The government wants real-time interception by which the security agencies could monitor/intercept video calls as it happens.

Understandably, 3G in India has caused more issues than it has solved.

Unfortunately, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has provided a 2005 document on definition of 3G data rates (to quote):

ITU has not provided a clear definition of the data rate users can expect from 3G equipment or providers. Thus users sold 3G service may not be able to point to a standard and say that the rates it specifies are not being met. While stating in commentary that “it is expected that IMT-2000 will provide higher transmission rates: a minimum data rate of 2 Mbit/s for stationary or walking users, and 384 kbit/s in a moving vehicle,”[18] the ITU does not actually clearly specify minimum or average rates or what modes of the interfaces qualify as 3G, so various rates are sold as 3G intended to meet customers expectations of broadband data.

This causes issues in clear definition of 3G rates that would be expected of these companies to provide us with. This confusion also means that we are in the same league as broadband- no clear definition and companies can murder and get away with.

Suppose if you were to file a case against, say Airtel or Reliance for “speed issues”. They can always get away with “network congestion” argument. Further, in court of law, TRAI could be answerable for it has failed to set a clear cut idea about 3G (being the regulator) and companies claiming the excuse for TRAI’s inefficiency.

As a customer, you are bound to get a short fuse for being cheated on a gargantuan scale for “higher prices” which is now being sold as a value added service in addition to bundling with voice calls. 3G (in the media) has been hailed as the “next wave of broadband” which is clearly unfortunate case of irrational exuberance.

I have tried to contact Business Standard on fine tuning their editorial content and at least their coverage on Tech issues in India. It is the worst case scenario with rehashed press releases as “news” raising the spectre of “paid media news”. These are often attributed to “BS reporter” and is really pathetic for a newspaper of it’s standing and repute.

In the same vein, although much is made about video calling (at least by those who have front facing cameras), I wonder how would the call clarity be.

I hate this murky world, the obvious excess of advertisements and absolutely no semblance of sensibility and rationalism. This only points towards a total state of anarchy but when the customers by themselves lack any means to differentiate chaff from the grain, I have no love lost for the masses. Let them get screwed; this is testified by occasional mails in my inbox complaining about the poor quality of service and mails to Ambanis and Bhartis and what not. Assholes.

In all this mess, I fail to get the kind of service I would want- pure play wireline fiber optic cable with at least 2 Mbps unmetered and perhaps wireless for restricted mobility and occasional odd job that needs to be done of the fly. EDGE is good enough for the needs; basic emails work great on that.

I am quoting extensively from editorial in Scientific American. There is urgency in the lay press to spur on the debate on a wider scale to have “faster speeds”. We are fucking stuck up with the SAME 256kbps over the past few years WITHOUT any relief.

It could also be argued that it doesn’t apply to us but I’d argue that US and India are part of the same league as far as the issues are concerned. There is only a bit of difference; FCC is more responsive to criticism and at least is seen to “ACT”. Our dear regulator TRAI fails to even acknowledge the emails and act on rational decisions.

Any way, here’s what the rational arguments have to say about it: (emphasis mine)

“The average U.S. household has to pay an exorbitant amount of money for an Internet connection that the rest of the industrial world would find mediocre….The consequences are far worse than having to wait a few extra seconds for a movie to load. Because broadband connections are the railroads of the 21st century—essential infrastructure required to transmit products (these days, in the form of information) from seller to buyer—our creaky Internet makes it harder for U.S. entrepreneurs to compete in global markets>.”

The editorial goes on to say:

The same is not true in Japan, Britain and the rest of the rich world….You can choose from multiple companies, each of which has to compete on price and service. The only exceptions to this policy in the whole of the 32-nation Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development are the U.S., Mexico and the Slovak Republic, although the Slovaks have recently begun to open up their lines.

The slow speeds not only hurt our competitiveness but in the long run lowers the GDP as well. The biggest issue here is to “re-define” the speeds to ATLEAST 2mbps as the “minimum standard”. However, I see a potential rebellion from the cohorts of Tatas, Reliance and the crap companies like Beam/Shyam/Sify etc who provide the proverbial last mile link to the premises.

It is next to impossible to get to admit it but once the consumer awareness comes perhaps then we might see such editorials in our mainstream press too.