This is seen from travails of the Telecom Regulation Authority of India(TRAI): despite its powers on tariff setting, TRAI is not free to enforcethe calling party pays principle for mobiles. The old Act must go; what isrequired is a new law consistent with the vision for telecom development.But the government is in two minds in this regard. It has developed secondthoughts on referring the issue to the Law Commission, presumably becausethat will be time-consuming. It reportedly proposes to set up a group torecommend changes in the Act. This may seem pragmatic but changes to bemeaningful (and hiccup-free) must alter the basic framework of the Act. Thisrequires political will. Furthermore, it is time the government got awell-focussed competition law in place: without it, the government can onlytinker with telecom liberalisation.

This is not to belittle current initiatives to sort out tangles. Yes, TRAI'sjurisdiction and powers need to be spelt out as also strengthened. But whatis to be its relationship with the Telecom Commission which is to look afterlicensing and policy? Can TRAI decide on the timing of new entrants or isthis to be in the Commission's domain? In the latter case, TRAI's authorityin promoting competitive pricing in an industry undergoing rapidtechnological advances will be diminished. There is no question that actionneeds to be taken to accelerate DoT's corporatisation within the 2001deadline. But what will be TRAI's authority on India Telecom (corporate DoT)if as service provider it is to be accountable to Department of Telecom(Services)? How corporate will India Telecom be? VSNL's role too needs to bedefined once its monopoly on overseas gateways for data and voice isended.

Instead of tackling obstacles piecemeal, the government should set out itstelecom strategy, create a new legal framework to accommodate it, andallocate the telecom PSUs their place in the sun. Besides, a competition lawis a must. Isolated initiatives, however pragmatic, will create new tangles.