Two Steps To Boost Broadband Usage

 

The first, fixing technology gaps, should be easy. The second warrants consideration for better services and to avoid undue disruption

Shyam Ponappa   |    January 7, 2021

Last month, the Cabinet announced a radical policy to expand Wi-Fi coverage across the country and to increase broadband internet access and usage. It sets out how anyone can establish public Wi-Fi hotspot networks in accordance with specified protocols, and resell broadband internet to users.¹

Media reports have been largely enthusiastic, though sometimes confusing, despite strong opposition by telecom operators and Internet service providers (ISPs), who may consider this an infringement of their licensed rights. The argument that they too can set up Wi-Fi hotspots on similar terms is specious, because it ignores their having paid huge sums already for these licensed, contractual rights.

The new policy enables any individual or enterprise to set up public Wi-Fi networks without a licence, and without any fees to the government. Until now only licensed telcos and ISPs could do so, after paying for licences, and in the case of telcos, for spectrum as well. This is why Wi-Fi without government charges seems cheaper. Some aspects of the policy are not clear, such as whether existing laws allow for reselling Internet services by subscribers (equivalent to subletting, which was prohibited), or how it will be commercially feasible and viable for small businesses. In other words, who will pay, and why, if they already have access to inexpensive cellular services. There is also the question of whether transnationals such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and so on would be permitted if they were interested in considering investment in connectivity, especially in corporate and dense commercial centres, and whether Indian corporations would have similar interests. But all of these are likely to need additional enablers as described below.

As ubiquitous broadband internet is an end-to-end service, its foremost requirement is for high-capacity, reliable connectivity throughout the chain. Without the “plumbing” that enables access to data flow and repositories, as with water, it is limited in its availability and reach. The policy change focuses on the last-mile at the user end, whereas our problems extend from the user all the way back to the fibre core or subnetworks. It is this middle-mile from the fibre to the kerb, or to the home or a customer’s premises before the user link, or from a gram panchayat to the village, that is also missing, and difficult to fulfill. A report by the Telecommunications Standards Development Society, India suggests most villages would be within 5-10 km from gram panchayats.

Accepting the need to improve broadband access:

One step is to fix the gaps in the communications chain that this policy addresses, namely, distribution at the user end, and technology gaps. Consider the most fundamental element of digital communications, connectivity. There seem to be incomplete links in communications networks in the planning and execution of broadband Internet service delivery of what is required, and where. Perhaps some of it is because of an expectation of markets being self-organising systems, which does not hold universally. Wireless solutions for the middle-mile are tantalisingly close, because the spectrum is available but not permitted in India. This is partly because of contention on treating some bands as open Wi-Fi or restricted to licensed telcos, or to broadcasting, or only 4G (details in footnote).² Only licensed operators need unconstrained access to these bands, on the lines of the Department of Telecommunications’ (DoT’s) regulations for 5 GHz Wi-Fi, modelled on the US Federal Communications Commission regulations.

The second aspect, for consideration and consultation because it contradicts the new policy, calls for a radically different approach. Yet, it is critical, because maintaining stability is imperative in such a crucial infrastructure service that affects so many areas of living, working, education, entertainment, leisure, governance and security. Especially now, with a pandemic and the looming non-performing asset constraints. We need to expand usage with minimal disruption. Would it not be more effective to remove government charges from telcos and ISPs, as for new entrants, and permit licensed operators in the industry to grow? The straightforward reasons are that they have the established market presence, capacity and experience. Some requisite regulations are in place. This would help maintain stability when we need it most. Operators have the rights and are likely to act on opportunities to expand, if only they had the resources and incentives. The resources would be partly from the savings from not paying licence fees, in line with the waiver of fees for new entrants. Take away all government charges and licence fees, and the operators are not only likely to invest in hotspots for many urban clusters and aggregates of rural users, we may also have a resurgent communications services industry.

Viewing it objectively, operators have already paid licence fees and auction prices for spectrum, resulting in government charges being 30 per cent of revenues for telcos, excluding income tax, unlike in any other industry. In addition, the 2G scam stalled the sector as a whole, because penalties against some perpetrators upended the industry, penalising everyone. Spectrum was restricted and expensive, thereby escalating equipment costs while constraining revenues. As a consequence, users are deprived of enabling facilities, restricting productivity.

This would remove potential threats of litigation for breach of contract, because of arbitrary changes in licensing terms. Problems such as “retrospective taxes” would still remain to be scotched, while management of spectrum and 5G would need equally radical changes in approach and policy going forward.

A gap created by these changes, which the new policy covers, would need resolution: Enabling community Wi-Fi networks, especially in rural areas, because they may be less commercially attractive, and more difficult to build and operate until supportive ecosystems grow. Incentives for rural extension would round out the rational support.

---

Shyam (no space) Ponappa at gmail dot com

1. For explanatory briefs, see: https://www.medianama.com/2018/07/223-coai-pmo-wifi and 

https://wifinowglobal.com/news-and-blog/all-you-need-to-know-about-indias-new-wani-public-wi-fi-scheme/

Announcements - Press Information Bureau; Details - Department of Telecommunications:

https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1679342

https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/202-_12_11%20Brief%20PM%20WANI_0_0.pdf

https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/2020_12_11%20WANI%20Framework%For 0Guidelines_0.pdf

https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/2020_12_29%20A%26S%20WANI.pdf

2. 60 GHz (V-band) for a few hundred metres at multi-gigabit speeds; 70-80 GHz (E-band) for 3-4 km; TV White Space in the 500-700 MHz bands for rural light licensing long hops (802.22), versus broadcasting for 500-600 MHz, versus 4G for 700 MHz.

Recapturing the Commons

Regulations that facilitate infrastructure with appropriate public resource use will enhance productivity.

Shyam Ponappa   |   March 7, 2019

Growth in the third quarter was disappointing, but there are signs of a cyclical recovery, with a Purchasing Managers Index for manufacturing at a 14-month high. For a significant upward shift of our growth curve, however, apart from lower interest rates, policy-makers have to be constructive. What might we wish for? Here are some suggestions.

Accept the reality that investible funds in India are insufficient for our needs. These include our stock and net inflow of capital, and profits available for investment. We can try to increase our productive capacity or choose business-as-usual, thereby staying below our potential. Why? Because our activities aren’t profitable enough to induce and sustain investment. We need investment —in hard infrastructure, such as transportation and logistics, electricity, water and sewerage, and communications, and in second-order infrastructure, such as security and law and order, health care, education and training, banking, finance and insurance. There’s also the need for reorganisation of markets and practices, e.g., in agriculture, infrastructure, and government procurement.

There’s little doubt that digital connectivity is invaluable for all these. While the imperative is clear, the question is how to orchestrate achieving the desired results.

The telecom operators, alas, have low profitability, inadequate network coverage, and too much debt. Continuing as before means subpar access and productivity for all. We are all hamstrung, and even more so in rural areas. Because of the expanse an7d scattered users there, connectivity entails much higher costs with lower revenue potential.

Self-Organising Infrastructure – A Conceptual Flaw Without Regulatory Support

Meanwhile, there are conceptual flaws in our approach. The National Optical Fibre Network (Bharat Broadband Network Limited or BharatNet) was conceived as a countrywide fibre backbone. The plan was for optical fibre links to 250,000 gram panchayat villages covering India’s approximately 600,000 inhabited villages. A major assumption, however, was that private operators would build access networks to villages and to users. This was unrealistic for a number of reasons. First, there’s the cost of covering sparse users over large expanses with low revenue potential. Second, the supportive regulations for wireless technologies to build the access networks were/are not in place. For example, even for the established 5 GHz WiFi range used globally for WiFi hotspots, restrictive policies meant that 5 GHz equipment could not be used effectively in India in urban or rural installations. This changed with new regulations for 5 GHz, but only four months ago in October 2018 (for details see https://organizing-india.blogspot.com/2018/11/a-great-start-on-wi-fi-reforms.html).

Other wireless technologies for intermediate- and last-mile links are still blocked, and need enabling regulations.

• The 700 MHz band: No operators bid for this given its high price, although it is very useful for covering distances of 5-10 km, and can penetrate walls and foliage. This band together with the 500 and 600 MHz bands could be used to connect gram panchayats to nearby villages. A study of inter-site distances in 14 states shows that most villages would be covered with this range (see Chart below).
  
  
  Study of Inter Site Distances - Gram Panchayats and Villages

• Source: https://tsdsi.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Krishna-Ganti-Day-1-5th-Session-1.pdf

• The 500 and 600 MHz bands are allocated for TV, and therefore are part of the “tragedy of the unused commons”. Only a small fraction is used for broadcasting in India because of limited free-to-air TV and better alternatives. As they are earmarked for broadcasting, they are not used for telephony either.

• The 70-80 GHz band (E-band) is effective for short-range links covering more users at 3-4 km, but not permitted in India, although it is light-licensed in many countries with nominal fees, e.g., the USA, UK, Russia, and Australia. While ideally our regulations should align with global norms, there are exorbitant charges on operators (reportedly 37 per cent, plus corporate taxes), a debt overhang from spectrum auctions, huge investment needs, and relatively low revenue potential. Compelling arguments to let operators use the E-band with unlicensed access, with registry on a geo-location database to manage interference, to be reviewed after some years. The additional traffic will generate revenues from which government collections will increase.

• The 60 GHz (V-band for distances up to 1.6 km): the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) opposes making it licence-free as in most countries, and wants it assigned to operators for access and backhaul. For the same reasons as for E-band, operators could be allowed unlicensed access, with a review after some years.

Market Structure and Organisation

A larger problem is that legacy structural and organisational issues need concerted efforts to take requisite policy initiatives. This is perhaps a greater, more urgent need for ubiquitous connectivity.

Successive governments have struggled with revival plans for BSNL and MTNL, somewhat analogous to Air India and Indian Airlines in aviation. Governments have not provided sustained support for ambitious connectivity objectives. There is sometimes inadequate understanding of fast-changing, technically complex enterprises, and episodic attention is given to large enterprises that need timely capital- and skill-intensive decisions (and decision-makers in place), and the upgrading of skills and operating practices. BSNL and MTNL are declining, with bailouts, market disruption through price-cutting, and inability to deliver profits. This is a huge opportunity cost on citizens. However, it is conceivable that with appropriate leadership, and organisational and capital backing, these enterprises could contribute effectively to ubiquitous connectivity, rather than being a drag and/or a disruptive factor. This could happen, for instance, if an alliance were possible with private sector operators providing leadership, organisation and capital, while state ownership concentrates on safeguarding the public interest.

Bharti Enterprises’ Chairman Sunil Mittal has suggested an alliance with Vodafone for an optical fibre network. Bharti and Vodafone already have a joint venture, Indus Towers, providing passive infrastructure services to operators. If regulations enabled active infrastructure from a consortium including BSNL and MTNL, it would leverage the infrastructure while reducing the capital requirements, and increase delivery capability. The entire thrust of regulations could be oriented to facilitating service delivery, leveraging capital, equipment and human resources.

The regulatory approach should aim to facilitate access equitably to public resources that belong to citizens, and not to create obstacles.

---

Shyam (no space) Ponappa at gmail dot com