Vodafone Essar expresses deep concern on the current review of IUC by TRAI

Vodafone Essar (VE) has written a strong letter to TRAI pointing out that the current review of Interconnection Usage Charges (IUC) charges by TRAI which has been undertaken pursuant to the judgment of Hon'ble TDSAT and interim direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not taken cognizance of or has deviated from the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, both in relation to the timing and the principles enunciated and guidance given by the Hon'ble Tribunal in several key areas.

VE firstly noted that the Hon'ble Tribunal has clearly stated that: "Framing a wrong question, it is trite, would lead to a wrong answer" [101(4)] and it is therefore critical to ensure that the issues raised in the Consultation Paper do not countenance approaches which are not consistent with the Hon'ble Tribunal's judgment. 

1. In this regard, VE stated that TDSAT having stated "...Its [TRAI's] jurisdiction being limited to determine the charges on cost based and work done principle …" [101(5)], consideration of [non cost based approaches such as] bill and keep (zero charge) approach for any component of IUC is simply no longer an option available to TRAI.
2. Further, with the issue of CAPEX being settled by TDSAT stating "It is not in controversy that cost would include CAPEX/OPEX and depreciation" [114(12)], the question "Should CAPEX be included in calculating/ estimating termination charge?" raised by TRAI is tantamount to going against the judgment of the Hon'ble TDSAT, which is binding on the Authority.
3. VE also expressed serious concern that despite the TDSAT clearly stating that "…Such a methodology, in our opinion, which was going to be adopted by TRAI, should have been disclosed so as to enable the parties to offer their respective comments thereupon.  In other words, what was necessary for TRAI was to let the stakeholders aware as to which methodology was to be adopted so that comments thereupon could be made." [98(8)], the TRAI has given absolutely no indication of the methodology proposed to be adopted by it and continues to leave all issues open.
   VE has pointed out that without specifying the methodology to be adopted, the stakeholder's ability to provide useful data and comment is necessarily constrained, and stakeholders do not know whether their efforts in gathering and providing data are useful or irrelevant. This would be tantamount to seeking responses in a vacuum which will render the consultation process meaningless.
4. VE also expressed deep disappointment that TRAI had not dealt with /considered the expert evidence submitted by it, despite TDSAT stating that "… TRAI should consider the matter once again upon taking into consideration all aspects of the matter including the views of the Expert." [114(11)] and that "acceptance of one or the other methodologies should be supported by reasons" [114(12)].

VE has asked TRAI to, on a priority basis, reframe the issues in accordance with the Hon'ble TDSATs judgment and also issue a Draft Regulation first with its reasons on the submissions, inputs, expert evidence given by all stakeholders, before issuing the final IUC Regulation.