The Trai way to killing pesky calls

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

Related Articles

Local call rates may fall to 20 paise/minute: RajaDoT tries levelling the fieldIdea Cellular ties up with HTC Corp to launch touc...Nazara Signs exclusive deal with Sameera Reddy

Judging by the intensely negative reactions one has seen to telemarketing from telephone subscribers, one wonders whether such unsolicited calls are indeed worth the while for various businesses. Yet, seeing the persistence with which it is pursued, there must be profits in this business. And if there are profits in telemarketing, there is bound to be attempts to reach as many gullible ears as possible irrespective of the regulations meant to ensure some semblance of order and civility in the entire scheme.

Under pressure from public complaints, the intervention of Parliament, the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India had last year issued a regulation setting up the National Do Not Call (NDNC) register with a view to containing the menace of unsolicited commercial calls. Apparently, to date, only 8.3 million phone users out of over 200 million have registered for the ‘do not call’ facility with the NDNC. This could imply one of the two things. Either the number of persons sufficiently annoyed by unsolicited calls to take steps to register themselves with the NDNC is a small percentage of all users, or there is a limitation in the regulation with regard to the procedural aspects. Even though the percentage of users registered with the NDNC is small, the absolute numbers are not insignificant.

Could a better arrangement have been to put all numbers in the NDNC register, and when requested, a specific number could be removed from the register? This approach has been voiced by some telecom operators in the press. How many persons would be willing to voluntarily seek listening to advertisements? Not withstanding the negatives of telemarketing, it is a legal and possibly even welcome means to learn about commercial products. Therefore, the existing arrangement of registration by the customer is the right approach. Why then there are so many complaints still persisting? It becomes, therefore, more important to analyse the regulation and its effectiveness. It is evident that the recently issued amendment to the original regulation is meant to make the regulation more effective.

Provisions to penalise telemarketers existed in the original regulation. It is possible that the money and, therefore, profits involved in telemarketing were such that the service providers found it more convenient (read profitable) to ignore infringements as much as they could get away with. The proposed penalties on operators – Rs. 5000 for the first reported case of not taking any action followed by up to Rs. 20,000 for each subsequent such action – are meant as financial dis-incentives to operators. Wielding of the stick on the operators was the only alternative available to the regulator. There are a few issues associated with the implementation of this step. In the first place is the question whether, in quantitative terms, these dis-incentives are quite adequate to compel the operators to follow the regulation. The other aspect is that, whether the implementation of the punishment, the responsibility of which lies entirely with Trai (according to the amendment order), could get bogged down by the process of data collection or the magnitude of the number of complaints since the wherewithal available with the regulator is limited. On both counts, only time will tell and the regulator may have to suitably modify the amendment in step with the experience.

Reports have also appeared in the press questioning whether Trai has the authority to impose financial punishment under the Trai Act 1997. This aspect has been clearly commented upon by Trai in the explanatory notes attached to this order.

There should be no doubt in any one’s mind that Trai is not meant to only issue regulations, directives and orders, but is also enjoined upon to ensure their implementation. Even the previous authority, faced with a similar debate on the issue of ensuring provisioning of interconnection between various operators had, in the light of an order by the tribunal, requested the government to seek an amendment of the Trai Act suitably to leave no ambiguity in regard to powers of the regulator to have its regulations, directions and orders implemented.

Incidentally, the concept of a ‘Do Not Call Registry’ has been in operation in the US for several years and reports say it works quite well. A recent report on the Federal Trade Commission site shows that 92% of people who reported placing a number on the registry said they are receiving fewer calls and a total of 78% said they are getting far fewer or no calls at all. It is thus evident that in awell stabilised arrangement, there still are a few infringements which are taken care of by instituting investigation and followed up with penal action.

Thus, Trai is on the right track by introducing arrangements for investigations in all cases of complaints and prescribing fiscal and other penalties. A further action that Trai could take is to create a segment on its website which educates and guides telephone users about stopping such calls and more importantly, what to expect from the NDNC registry process. In fact, Trai should encourage frequent subscriber comments and use the feedback to fine tune and simplify the procedure. It should also periodically post results of the actions taken by Trai on the complaints and the results accruing from such actions. Such a step will induce patience and tolerance in users for the difficulties faced in eliminating all such calls and the limitations which service providers have. Further, the procedure for registration should be periodically publicised in newspapers to increase awareness.