|
Cellular lobby hones legal agenda
Shalini Dagar
New Delhi : Sharpening the focus on the exact nature of the legal recourse to be taken, the cellular operators lobby is veering towards challenging the manner in which the `limited mobility' issue was handled-rather than the TRAI recommendations themselves.It is believed that while a certain section of cellular operators was threatening to challenge the DoT's very reference of the issue to the TRAI, the final consensus is to not adopt that route-even though the players unanimously feel that "the reference could have been better worded." In the meantime, the COAI sources claim that some more specific points have been shortlisted for legal reference. These are:
The linkage of the revenue share with the basic guidelines: The TRAI has recommended that one of the sops for the cellular operators in lieu of limited mobility should be a reduction in their revenue share burden from 17 per cent to 12 per cent. According to a senior official of a cellular operator in South India: "The issue of the revenue share was not even included in the DoT's original reference to the TRAI on limited mobility. We have a legal contract with the government. When the regulator decides to change the terms of the contract, are we not supposed to be party to the deliberations?" Adds the source: "On what basis has the figure of 12 per cent been arrived at? There is nothing in the annexures to the recommendations to suggest what kind of calculations were made to arrive at this figure." The same holds true for the figure of 5 per cent arrived at "arbitrarily" by the TRAI for the revenue share of long distance traffic.The open house: The cellular lobby also plans to raise concerns over the manner in which the consulation process and the open house proceedings were conducted prior to the recommendations. The open house discussion held at New Delhi in November 2000 had turned into a rowdy affair with basic operators and the cellular lobby virtually coming to blows. The COAI, thereafter, had been urging for a repeat open house, a suggestion which was not entertained by the TRAI. Independent panel: Another issue is that of the 12-member independent panel set up in December 2000 for consultations on the issue of the provision of the limited mobility issue. Cellular operators allege that the process was neither independent nor transparent. Cellular operators also allege that "the recommendations have been made without any discussions on substantial licensing, legal, commercial, or competition-related issues."Voicing its protest on the consultation process, the COAI is believed to have made a request for a `de novo' exercise in a letter to the TRAI on December 26, 2000. The letter was reportedly in response to a sharp letter from the TRAI, dated 21st December, where the COAI had been upbraided for assuming that the TRAI had a "predetermined stance" on the issue. COAI in its earlier communications had also been asking for copies of written submissions made by the other parties to the issue. The TRAI did not entertain this request, claims the COAI.Cellular sources aver that while this process had been followed in the earlier Open House sessions, this precedent was not followed by the Open House discussions on limited mobility. DoT officals, however added that there was no precedent of the sort. And TRAI in its final recommendations has declared the opinions that it had considered during the consultation process in a bid to ensure transparency in the process. TRAI officals, however, were not available for comment. Copyright © 2001 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
|
