Economic
Highlights
New Delhi,
16 May, 2016
If
Call Drop Penalty Illegal
CONSUMERS
IN TROUBLE
By
Shivaji Sarkar
The
blemish in India’s
much-lauded telecom revolution is a widely recurring phenomenon called “call
drops.” In a country which is the world’s second-largest mobile user market
after China, fast-paced expansion coupled with inadequate infrastructure and
overloaded networks is leading to many callers being cut off mid-sentence!
Naturally,
the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) awarded Re 1 for call drop
subject to a maximum of Rs 3 a day. And the operators cried foul as it would
cost them Rs 200 crore per quarter (Rs 800 crore a year) which they thought was
untenable logic. Yet, it also could be interpreted as the caller awarding Rs 800
crore bonus to companies for their poor service.
Pertinently,
it is not a loss to the operators but what TRAI suggested is a cap on their
illicit and unethical income. Though nobody has directly accused the operators of
doing it deliberately, many alleged that they were increasing their earnings by
engineering the drops or call disconnect. Any wonder the High Court upheld the
TRAI order and found the telecom services deficient.
Notably,
even this scribe during his visit to the Simhasth Kumbh early this month found
disconnects while trying to make a call or receiving one. And each time, if one
was also on roaming, the charges were being deducted. Shockingly, internet
services on a phone too were not working but when one tried to connect, one was
losing money to the operators despite one being unable to use the services.
Moreover,
this is not only embarrassing, irritating but also frustrating. Does one pays
for his inability to have services? This is queer.
Technically
speaking, a call drop represents the service provider’s inability to maintain a
call, either incoming or outgoing, once it has been correctly connected.
Undeniably, in India,
call drops are a performance indicator for the country’s telecom networks.
In
many cities, mobile users have to rush from one room to another or drive around
neighbourhoods to find better signals and better voice quality. Some angry
users are going so far as accusing telecom services providers, who charge for a
call by the minute, of deliberately engineering call drops to increase
revenues.
Alongside,
India
is adding millions of new mobile users each quarter and the country’s active
subscriber base of 869 million is fast closing in on a billion. However, telecom
operators have been unable to adequately ramp up infrastructure and technology
to keep pace.
Notwithstanding
the apparent ubiquity of telecom towers atop buildings in various cities, poor
voice quality, blind spots and abrupt termination of calls have become such a
bane in India’s telecom industry that Prime Minister Modi was forced to step in
and ask officials to sort out the problem.
Consequently,
the Supreme Court’s latest ruling has come as a surprise. True, the learned
judges know the law better, but the common man fails to understand the logic
how a caller is responsible for the call drop or for that matter a call disconnecting.
It
is also difficult to understand why a caller would disconnect a call. For each
such disconnection, a caller pays penal charges. In other words, his “folly”,
if it is so, as per the ruling, enriches the operator.
The
Apex Court
asserted that TRAI’s ruling of imposing a penalty of Re 1 was illegal. Holding the telecom
authority responsible for failing to explain the reasons for fixing a Re 1
compensation for each call drop and a cap on three call drops per day, the
court stated the regulation is based on mere guess-work.
“These matters go
out of mere guess work, and into the realm of unreasonableness, as obviously,
as has been held by us, there was no intelligent care and deliberation before
any of these parameters have been fixed,” it declared.
This may be so. In
the whole debate however, one thing which has not been discussed is how much
the callers are losing a day and what are the hefty earnings of the operators?
The callers are unanimous that a Re 1 one compensation subject to a maximum or
Rs 3 a day is the lowest one could have and is not on the higher side.
Undoubtedly, nobody
disputes that a call drop itself is a penalty for a caller. It is also not
unknown that it is not easy to fathom the intricacies of the problem to the
last digit. The TRAI it appears had fixed the provisions at the minimum. As there
is very little transparency on call drop data but it can be safely said that
most companies have multiple sites where a call drop incidence is much above
the stipulated 2 per cent ceiling.
Besides, a
regulator primarily tries to protect the operation of a business. In this case
too, TRAI had taken that caution by not prescribing a high penalty as that would
have been detrimental to the interest of the industry.
Be that as it may,
the regulator also has a responsibility to the user which it could not ignore.
Indeed, for deficiencies of the services of the operator, the user/consumer
cannot be penalized. Following this principle, TRAI had awarded the ruling
imposing a minimum penalty on the operator.
Unfortunately, it
is not unknown that the industry wants to thrive more on earnings which are not
due to it. In the case of telecom, it is all the more blatant.
Clearly,
call drops could be the undoing of several booming sectors, including India’s
mobile-powered e-commerce industry, where frequent call drops make consumers
nervous about payments. In fact, the problem has reached such dire proportions
across the country that TRAI has indicated that telecom service providers need
to compensate users for dropped calls.
As
if to silence its critics, India’s
top telecom company Bharti Airtel recently announced that it would bill by the
second instead of per-minute. Another operator Telenor of Norway said it would
reimburse users for call drops and commit to quality customer service. So
TRAI’s observation has virtually been accepted by the industry in practice.
In
sum, the judiciary needs to review its ruling. The issue is not about scoring a
law point. It is about propriety and principles of natural justice. Getting
redressal for a corporate ‘mistake’ is difficult.
Importantly,
if the ruling on call drop becomes a precedent, it would cost the Indian consumers
in all fields heavily and establish an unruly system, which the courts would
find difficult to correct. Let the nation abide by TRAI’s observation and
ensure justice to all. ----- INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|