Dual-tech telcos may have to meet rollout norms for GSM separately

Contrary to the claim of the dual technology operators like Reliance Communications and Tata Teleservices, the department of telecommunications ( DoT) is veering to the view that companies which receive spectrum under dual technology would have to meet the rollout obligations separately for new spectrum to operate the second technology.

In this case it means that both the companies, which received spectrum for GSM operations, would have to meet the rollout obligations separately for the GSM network and thus their CDMA networks cannot be counted in for assessing their rollout obligations.

The decision comes a year after the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ( Trai) pointed out that the dual technology licensees?RCom and TTSL?have mentioned to Trai that separate rollout obligations for GSM was not applicable.

According to an internal DoT note, the Trai recommendations on September 28, 2007, the UASL amendment and the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) judgement on March 31, 2009 all seemed to be pointing towards the same.

The Trai had recommended that additional spectrum to dual technology licensees should be efficiently utilised and therefore the licensee should be required to fulfil contingent rollout obligations. These recommendations were accepted by the government and dual technology licences were allotted with the mention that the company shall meet rollout obligations and other stipulations of the UAS licensees.

?From reading the summary of the Trai recommendation, it appears that it was the intention of the regulator to impose roll out obligation for the additional spectrum with respect to the additional technology (eg GSM in the case of existing CDMA operators). The contingent rollout obligation here apparently points to the roll out obligation as a result of grant of licence for use of second technology,” the DoT note said.

Also the TDSAT while dismissing the petition 286 of 2007, had emphatically said, ?we do not agree with the petitioners’ contention that the DoT has disregarded the recommendations of the Trai in respect of contingent roll out obligations?.

Hence despite no clear definition of the phrase ?contingent rollout obligations?, it is difficult to deny the existence of separate rollout obligations for second technology on the licence of the concerned licensees.