Interestingly, the NLD operators are also upset over the same clause, since it permits them to carry intra-circle traffic only in a mutual agreement with the FSPs. "There is enough ambiguity in this clause to leave room for different interpretations and with no redressal mechanism in place, all we are headed for, is unnecessary delays," says BT India managing director, Arun Seth.

And since the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) is the largest FSP, it still leaves the NLD operators with the humongous task of negotiating and reaching a mutually accepted agreement with the DoT. Says Spice Telecom CEO Umang Das: "Mutual acceptance has no meaning. Why would the only FSP, the Department of Telecom (DoT), which has its own infrastructure, agree to share revenue? So it is only half a opening of the segment and a half-baked way of looking at things.''

In fact, the Cellular Service Providers of India (COAI) director-general TV Ramachandran went a step further in saying that the guidelines appeared to throw open the sector, but had the potential of ``leading to the same mess'' as was witnessed in the cellular industry.

"DoT is the only FSP. If it acts unreasonable, one cannot strike any agreements with it. Hence, this policy will not spawn real competition. I am very disappointed that what the prime minister had announced and what the National telecom Policy 1999 had envisaged has not been carried out," said Ramachandran. Das also criticised the 15 per cent cap fixed for revenue-sharing and Universal Service Obligation (USO) saying that unless and until the whole policy is defined and detailed, there was no point in talking about USO.

HFCL director Mahendra Nahta, however, felt that the policy guidelines were on expected lines and described it as `a step in the right direction'. ``Intra-circle opening is a legal issue and is beyond the ambit of NTP '99. So, the issue merits a fresh look by the government,'' he added.Nahta, however, felt that the requirement of the NLDO having a paid-up capital of Rs 100 crore would have sufficed, instead of the mandatory Rs 250 crore. About the cap on revenue-sharing, Nahata said: ``A graded approach should have been followed. Not more than 5 per cent should have been required to have been given in the first year. It could have been raised to 15 per cent gradually within 10 to 15 years. Keeping it at 15 per cent from the beginning in such a capital-intensive industry is not good.''