It is true, as the majority of the country's mobile phone operators argue, that number portability (retaining your number even if you change operators) is not as critical today as it was a few years ago. To that extent, they argue, the department of telecommunications' (DoT) rejection of the telecom regulator's recommendations on introducing number portability for mobile phones is not of vital importance. Given how inexpensive it is to change telephone operators today, any consumer who is dissatisfied with his service provider can move to another; indeed, with so many customer schemes available today, the switchover can even be costless, at least in the case of GSM/cellular mobiles; in the case of CDMA mobiles, the costs of the handsets still acts as an entry/exit barrier. But to equate number portability with the ability of customers to change operators at low cost is fallacious; there is the convenience issue as well. Number portability allows consumers the option of retaining their number while changing operators, and so is obviously superior. Indeed, this much should be obvious""imagine the inconvenience of having to send out mails/short messages to everyone who has your number, each time you decide to change operators. The fact that most mobile phone operators in India are against number portability, even though most countries with even a reasonably-sized customer base have already implemented it, would suggest therefore that they fear a large number of customers will in fact shift if they have number portability. | |
| The DoT seems to have bought the mobile operators' argument that the costs of offering/implementing number portability are too high and that it will burden the companies at a time when they are embarking on huge expansions. This is untrue, as the costs associated with portability are just a fraction of that being incurred anyway. The telecom regulator's recommendation on the subject says the costs will be "marginal" and can be recovered by levying a small fee of Rs 200-300 for each customer who wants such a facility; if customers are willing to pay the cost, why should the phone firms worry? And if the mobile operators and/or the DoT is arguing that the cost calculations are incorrect, the correct remedy would be to appeal the figure in the Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT)""that way, the regulator's figures would be pitched against what the operators are saying and both claims could be examined dispassionately by neutral observers. What makes the DoT move doubly unfortunate is that, in the past, when the telecom regulator had seemed to be protecting the incumbent players (e.g. when its recommendations effectively increased the entry barrier for those wishing to start long-distance telephone services in the country, or when it wanted to hand out 3G spectrum to only existing players), it was the same DoT that ignored the regulator and took decisions that favoured customers. |
| |
| Another related area where the DoT needs to take a similar decision relates to the carrier access code (CAC)""this allows, say, an Airtel customer to call from Delhi to Mumbai on a Hutch long-distance network instead of on an Airtel one by simply dialling a pre-specified CAC for Hutch. For it is only when the CAC is introduced that those setting up new long-distance networks/services will be able to access subscribers on rival networks""if this is not done, it means customers will have to remain tied to their access provider for long-distance services as well. Hopefully, the DoT will take the right decision on this. |
| |
|
| |
