Are the white space technologies an opportunity for expanding broadband access in India? White spaces refer to gaps of unused spectrum between terrestrial broadcast channels in the 470-700MHz (TV-UHF) band. The gaps are necessary since TV signals are transmitted at high power and would otherwise interfere with each other. Microsoft, Google and Dell now offer new technologies that can exploit the white spaces for broadband access, especially in remote and rural areas.
I argue below that India’s regulatory regime offers clear directions on how to deal with spectrum demands of these technologies, and treating them as special cases is fraught with risks both to players as well as consumers.
India has a formidable broadband challenge. Less than 10% of Indians have access to broadband and barely 20% can access the internet. India’s telecom operators, both government and private, have struggled to offer broadband with a mix of fixed line (DSL), Wireless (3G, 4G) technologies. Their success is modest by any reckoning. Thus, there is good reason to remain open to new technologies and players, whatever the source.
However, white space technologies offer no immediate solution to India’s broadband challenge. As experts have pointed out earlier, India has no white space comparable to US and other countries, which use the 470-700 MHz band for terrestrial, not satellite-TV, broadcasting. The band is in fact unused in India. So, customised solutions that work with white space are less relevant to India.
The technology is new and, as such, has been deployed in very few jurisdictions—and even there, not uniformly. It is, therefore, unlikely that network equipment and devices are available at a scale or price that can justify their large scale deployment. This is critical for India since device affordability is central to achieving scale and therefore, eventual adoption of white space technologies.
Existing spectrum rules pose another problem with allocation of unused spectrum for white space technologies. Current government rules require that any spectrum for exclusive use by any player must be obtained through an open auction. This could raise its price to billions of dollars, going by bids in the earlier auction and TRAI’s earlier recommendations on the reserve price for comparable spectrum bands.
White space players could avoid the high spectrum price, were the government to delineate white space spectrum as unlicensed. This would require the spectrum to be available for shared use, much like the 2.4 GHz spectrum where anyone is permitted to deploy Wi-Fi services without needing any licence, as other wireless telecom services do.
Unfortunately, this is an attractive but problematic route to deploy white space technologies. The rules require that users of unlicensed spectrum restrict the power levels of their emissions. The rule seeks to prevent possible interference to systems deployed by other players. However, the restriction on power levels cancels out the advantage of white spaces in connecting over large distances.
The above analysis highlights the challenge facing new white space players in India. However, this is no argument against the technology or its deployment. India has done well by fostering a robustly competitive telecom market. It is official policy not to cap the number of players who can offer services. All spectrum on offer is sold without any restriction on use of any technologies as long as they comply with prescribed international standards. This is the way to go.
Ad hoc decisions relating to spectrum can have ripple effects on quality and price of consumer services, since India’s telecos provide almost all of the communication services available across the country. They have investments of the order of a trillion rupees. Any improvised decision to allocate valuable spectrum, much in demand by several competing players, can be expected distort markets as well as undermine current and future investments in the sector.
This is not to suggest that broadband markets require no support from regulators or policymakers. There is arguably a market failure when it comes to delivery of broadband access. Over 90% of Indians lack access to broadband. Fixed line broadband has been stagnant for several months, for lack of investment. Wireless technologies like 3G and 4G based data services are growing but there is long way to go. It would be counterproductive to block newer solutions, whether it is white space technologies, or Google’s Loon or Facebook’s drone project waiting in the wings for approval and support from regulators and policymakers.
It is, however, enjoined that regulators or policymakers avoid formulating any rules that are specific to any technology. In a sector driven by fast-changing and transformational technology, arguably, no one—least of all, regulators and governments—have the wherewithal to make such rules in a credible manner. The fate of technologies and players is a task best left to markets. Regulators are obliged to to ensure that markets are not distorted and that players or technologies can compete robustly.
There is little doubt that expanding broadband access will need considerable investment. Much can be done to reduce levies on the telecom sector that currently amount to 30% of the sector’s revenues and is unlike in any other country. A reduction in licence fees or spectrum usage charges, which currently contribute R20,000 crore to the exchequer, will go a long way to free up investments in broadband, without the need for technology-specific regulation.
India’s spectrum regime is far from perfect. It has several anomalies that are barriers to efficient use of spectrum which need to be fixed and brought in line with international best practices. However, India’s move to a transparent allocation of spectrum by auction determined market price is a hard won victory.
Ad hoc decisions on spectrum will fuel many of the controversies the sector saw in the past. It makes sense to ensure that spectrum for any new technology—whether white space, balloons or drones or any other—is allocated through auctions, following the same kind of regulatory processes used earlier.
The author is a telecom expert