We are losing out on so much of our potential because of regulatory constraints.
Shyam Ponappa | April 1, 2021
Not being permitted to use available spectrum in line with technological developments and global applications is like being deprived of access to the air around one. That our way-below-par broadband is not systematically addressed as a critically important way to provide requisite infrastructure to improve people’s lives is troubling. We lose out on the facilitation of education, healthcare, productivity, commerce, industry, government services, and entertainment. Is the government unaware of our deprivation? Surely the authorities are capable of devising ways to use spectrum for the common good.
Whatever other matters they are busy with, this is an area that should have priority.
The difficulty is in satisfying competing demands arising from what can best be described as our collective gnarled psyche. One preoccupation is with making corporations alone pay for public resources without allowing for profits. This apparently pervades not only the government’s thinking, but extends to many people at large, in the press and media, polity, civil administration, and judiciary. Compounded with the anxiety of decision-makers to protect themselves from overzealous future witch-hunts, this ensures there are no innovative attempts at resolving our communications infrastructure needs. One also sometimes encounters sentiments questioning whether we need 5G, or faster internet, or notions that we already have adequate broadband, and so on. We are inured to dysfunctional infrastructure support, and have become habituated to accepting deficiencies in our daily lives. Whether it is dropped calls, slow internet, or sporadic failures in electricity, water supply, or logistics, we treat this shoddy state as acceptable, despite its immense drag on effectiveness and productivity.
Meanwhile, we have just embarked on yet another 4G spectrum auction, while 5G, where we are way behind global developments, seems a lifetime away. If only our policymakers and administrators actively sought ways to improve our communications, including rural broadband, for instance, we might learn from practices elsewhere in the world of adaptations that could be implemented here. One interesting instance is that of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US. Seeking to improve broadband in underserved markets, in 2019, the FCC began the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) initiative, to channel universal service obligation funds collected from telecom operators to get high-speed networks built and services provided in rural areas. This replaced the prior Connect America Fund programme with its lowest-bid awards that had not worked. In 2020, the FCC conducted a reverse auction for broadband services to rural users, allowing for slower delivery in more remote locations. The tentative award for Phase I is $9.2 billion (Rs 67,000 crore) over the next 10 years in monthly instalments, with time-bound completion requirements. (India has about Rs 55,000 crore in a comparable Universal Service Obligation Fund.)
Over 400 entities, many of them consortiums including electricity distribution companies, have won RDOF contracts to build networks and provide services. Most plan fibre-optic networks, but the biggest winner for $1.3 billion, LTM Broadband, plans to also use high-speed fixed wireless. Another winner, SpaceX, plans Low Earth Orbit satellites to deliver 100 Mbps. There has been criticism from some analysts and contenders who question the feasibility of gigabit wireless networks in place of fibre. This may be uninformed, but it remains to be proven that delivery is on time and profitable.
Despite the difference in our environments, the FCC’s example has useful pointers for India. One is a practicable way to channel USO funds to develop rural broadband, with performance monitoring every six months. Second, a model and time frame to design and conduct a reverse auction, and award the 10-year contracts, with minimal hype. Third, allowing for choice of technologies, including high-speed fixed wireless, satellite, and so on. Finally, a solid foundation is provided by FCC’s supportive approach to making spectrum and infrastructure sharing a reality, including 6 GHz Wi-Fi. This is the sort of action we need in place of more rhetoric.
A complementary approach is that of Sweden and other Nordic countries. Telecom operators there have been sharing infrastructure and spectrum from 2G through 4G, which is now being extended to 5G. Note that all levels of technology (2G, 3G, 4G and 5G) coexist in their networks (1).
For India, policy-makers have to develop approaches, policies, laws, adaptations, and so on that are specific to our context, including culture, institutions, practices, and geographic and social circumstances. One element likely to be necessary for ubiquitous broadband is shared networks in rural areas as well as in dense urban environments. Mandatory provision of shared infrastructure was being considered in Sweden over a decade ago. Given that government’s initiatives and Sweden’s experience with sharing thereafter, network sharing is likely to be extended for internal use without mandatory requirements. In India, too, there is need for government initiatives and incentives. This is because extensive changes in policies, laws, and regulations must be effected, requiring inter-agency coordination and convergence in government departments, legislative agencies, institutions, and among stakeholders. The latter will include service providers, manufacturers, and user groups. Sweden’s experience shows there are compelling cost and energy saving reasons for sharing, apart from environmental impact mitigation, but that without government initiatives and facilitation, the common-good outcomes are not likely to evolve naturally in India, where passive sharing has been permitted and practised for years.
Our desperate need is for revamped spectrum regulations, making the relatively straightforward changes aligned with the FCC model to the extent feasible, after due consultation with industry and other stakeholders. Extending Wi-Fi on the lines of what has already been done for 5 GHz is the first step. The target bands are 6 GHz for Wi-Fi, 60 GHz for indoor Wi-Fi and outdoor authorised shared access by licensed operators like Wi-Fi, and similar outdoor regulations for 70-80 GHz. After that [the end-to-end connectivity is enabled -- which is infeasible now], a systematic initiative is required for network sharing through consortium ownership, with similar holdings in verticals with infrastructure providers, and government participation through BSNL. All concerned government agencies will need to be involved, as must all stakeholders.
Shyam (no space) Ponappa at gmail dot com
1: https://www.nokia.com/blog/the-well-kept-secret-of-2g-3g-4g-5g-dynamic-spectrum-sharing/
