WiLL controversy hots up again

DoT secretary asks TRAI chief to stop correspondence on the issue

NAVIKA KUMAR

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 18: If you thought the war between cellular services and limited mobility through Wireless in Local Loop (WLL) was over, think again. The issue has kicked up a major row once again and this time between the Department of Telecom (DoT) and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).

The DoT seems to be in no mood to entertain any correspondence with the TRAI on the WLL mobility issue and has virtually asked the regulator to shut up. The matter is also under review in the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).

The contentious issue between the TRAI and the DoT stems from the fact that the TRAI had mandated (in its May 24 tariff order) that a specific technology — called V5.2 — be used in order to keep the WLL-mobility ‘limited’. The DoT however, disregarded this, and allowed firms to use any technology — including, therefore, technology which could be used for larger distances, making the WiLL phone a fully-functional mobile one.

In September last year, TRAI chairman M.S. Verma wrote to telecom secretary Shyamal Ghosh objecting to this. Verma again argued that using V5.2 was to be mandated as this was the only way of ensuring just ‘limited’ mobility. As its May 24 order had stated, the TRAI had said this was the only way ‘to maintain clear distinction between WLL (mobile) and cellular mobile service with full mobility.’ And the reason for allowing only limited mobility WLL was that this was the ground on which virtually free spectrum was being given to basic service operators.

But Telecom Secretary Shyamal Ghosh hasn’t taken too kindly to the TRAI chairman’s repeated letters trying to rake up this issue. Replying to the September 28th letter, Ghosh told Verma ‘‘The matter had been examined and TRAI informed accordingly (through letters in August and again in October). It is desirable that the matter be allowed to rest there and further correspondence may be avoided.’’ Ghosh’s letter further states, ‘‘it may be appreciated that we should not create any uncertainity in this regard which will act as an impediment to roll out.’’ So what if the TRAI is the telecom regulator, appears to be Ghosh’s view.

The DoT approach in the issue is surprising as all along the government refrain has been that technology could not be stopped and if basic service operators had a technology wherein WLL could provide some mobility through the new technology, the consumer needed to get the advantage and that the government had acted in accordance with the TRAI’s recommendations on the issue. Why the TRAI itself was then being pushed into a corner is something which has not been explained.