Showing posts with label shared networks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shared networks. Show all posts

Thursday, August 3, 2023

Overview - Topics and Articles

 Latest Article:

The Case For Staying With Ethanol 10

Ethanol blending over 10 per cent may be desirable but a full understanding of its environmental and economic impacts is crucial.

Shyam Ponappa  August 3, 2023



Shyam Ponappa on ResearchGate

Comprehensive, Integrated Strategy & Execution
India has been coasting along on a post-feudal-colonial mélange of currents and tides, with the brigandage of opportunistic politics fed by our (the voters’) greed for short-term benefits. The result is grotesque populism and corruption, in lieu of the deferred gratification of pleasing cities and countryside with the appurtenances of proper governance: sidewalks and drains, toilets, transport, administration and order, hospitals and schools.

We have to organize and manage ourselves, “engineer” our way ahead, taking steps to build and develop our solutions, building systems and processes, and not just wait for things to happen. We need a comprehensive and integrated, systemic, silo-busting, problem-solving approach.

This applies across the board in the broadest “spatial planning” sense that integrates housing and land use at all levels with commercial, industrial, cultural, scientific and educational activity, transportation, and all governance and infrastructure: water, sewerage, energy, communications, basic health and education. Infrastructure being the first level of enablement is
 the essential starting point.


Previously, India’s leaders acknowledged that infrastructure is India’s great need. Yet, they took no steps [exception: NTP-2011 in October, 2011] to marshal forces to draw up a credible strategy and execution plan. This is what needed and needs doing. Only good intentions and/or money won’t do, because delivery systems and processes have to be developed, i.e., planned, and built from scratch.

It looks like the NDA II will seriously address the development of enabling infrastructure.  A beginning on a long way ahead.  The next few months will demonstrate the resolve of the NDA II to really break the mould and get the job done.

- July 2014

And it got worse for Digital India with another spectrum auction [March 2015] and the attendant deprivation of network rollout and service delivery. 

...And worse: another auction with Rs. 109,000 crore (~$17.6 billion). - April 2015

... And yet worse, as another auction reduced investment by over Rs. 65,000  crore  (~$10 billion). - October 2016

... And annual auctions threatened from 2017! - March 2017

Lack of integrated systems and controls led to the worst bank fraud in India - PNB $2 billion - February 2018  And IL&FS - September 2018

The National Digital Communications Policy 2018 is only an aspirational statement - October 4, 2018

Big bang for Wi-Fi!  5 GHz regulations similar to the US FCC. - October 2018

As the sector stalls, government talks 5G spectrum auction, wanting more cash while the industry drowns in debt. - January 2021  

The Supreme Court reverses previous rulings in favour of telecom operators on retroactive charges for spectrum based on an all-inclusive definition of Adjusted Gross Revenues continues...

Another ill-advised auction - March 2021.  And another monumental failure, neither serving the government's cash needs (too much left on the table), nor the consumers (too much spectrum left untouched).

A reversal (FINALLY!) of the retroactive tax amendment affecting Vodafone, Cairn, and others - August 5, 2021.

Spectrum Usage Charge zeroed; past due demands being reconsidered? - October 7, 2021

5G Spectrum Auction July 2022 nets Rs. 1.5 lakh crore (about $19 billion), making that amount of capital unavailable for investment in networks.  Allocation of an even larger amount to reviving BSNL and MTNL increases uncertainty of outcomes.



Thursday, November 5, 2020

List of Articles with Hyperlinks



1 FX Reserves & Infrastructure

[Finance/Economics]


3 Learning from Our Champions
[Goals, Tasks & Project Management
4 Organizing Aviation (Competition, Open Skies ...and Bust?)
[System (Re)building: Organization & Systems] 


5 Organizing: Biofuels (More Energy for Ethanol and Biodiesel!)
[System (Re)building: Organization & Systems] 


6 Thinking Big - Scale, Ownership & Results
[System (Re)building: Organization & Systems]

[System (Re)building: Organization & Systems]


9 Organizing PSU's: Performance is the Key
[System (Re)building: Organization & Systems]


11 Safeguarding India's Capital
[Finance/Economics]

[Goals, Tasks & Project Management]

15 Organizing Renewables- Next Steps for Biofuels)
[System (Re)building: Organization & Systems]

16 An Investment Fund for India
[Finance/Economics]

18 Tata's Corus Buy-A Game Theory Analysis
[Game Theory: Collaborative Gains]


20 Productivity & Regulatory Constraints (Opportunities for the Left)
[System (Re)building: Framework & Principles]

Thursday, June 6, 2019

5G Aspirations and Realities

What the government can do for 5G and Digital India with a Systems Approach.


Shyam Ponappa    |    June 6, 2019

Ah, 5G! The very thought seems to excite so many. What is it? It is a mix of telecom technologies1 delivering much higher data speeds on more extensive connectivity, using much lower power, with extended battery life, and emitting less radiation, for ways to connect and operate most of the conveniences people use regularly. From smartphones and computers for communications, study, work, research, entertainment, to other devices and machines, such as for managing utilities (electricity and water) at home and the workplace, refrigerators and cooking devices, industrial equipment, transport, and more, so that daily activities are eased considerably. The catch is that 5G is at an early stage in a long process — perhaps a couple of years to manifest in large trials in India, and several more years to be widely available, needing huge investment ($100 billion in India).
Yet, there are compelling reasons for developing India’s capabilities. There is the sheer necessity for India to partially meet its requirements, instead of relying entirely on imports. The big draw is the size of the Indian market and prospective demand, the global market, and the possibility of innovation at this early stage. Domestic capabilities are a prerequisite to afford deployment at a level that would otherwise exceed petroleum imports, with unsustainable effects on our balance of payments. Without domestic capacity, energy imports would limit electronics imports. (This highlights India’s need for solar power development, a separate and equally high priority.)


However, the sobering financial condition of India’s communications industry gives pause. Financial capacity — revenue generation and access to capital, both equity and debt at favourable terms — is required to develop capabilities. After the telecom price wars, even Reliance Jio is reportedly cutting staff. Airtel, meanwhile, having invested heavily in 4G infrastructure, has stated its unwillingness to bid for 5G pectrum unless prices are lower.
The government set up a committee for 5G in September 2017 with a steering group chaired by emeritus professor at Stanford Arogyaswami Paulraj, a pioneer in wireless communications. This committee recommended network deployment as the immediate priority, i.e., rolling out early, efficient and pervasive 5G networks. Technology design and manufacturing capacity were recommended for later phases.
Network deployment needs policy support driven by a Systems Approach, especially for a debt-encumbered sector faced with declining revenues per user, and unused, inaccessible spectrum, even as other countries enhance their lead. This is ironic, because India has real strengths in this sector and a large market, with the potential to catapult productivity and prospects. Yet, government policies have not succeeded in coordinating our reservoir of human resources and potential.
India lags in 5G despite the government’s stated interest in establishing a lead. Spectrum allocation and large trials were scheduled towards the end of 2019, and auctions in 2020. However, government statements this week target 5G trials by September, and auctions by the end of 2019. As spectrum band choices and allocations for trials have yet to be made, this appears overambitious without radical improvement in resolving many such issues.
Also, India’s reserve price for spectrum is seven times Korea’s. As sectoral cash flows are weak, there may be takers only at very low prices unless funding is from external sources as for Reliance. A monopolistic outcome would be undesirable in the public interest. Therefore, shared access with Wireless Resource Virtualisation and Network Function Virtualisation may be a much better solution for network deployment and market development.
Inexplicably, government and the public still view communications as a “government cash-cow” instead of as critical infrastructure, while complaining bitterly about poor delivery from low investment. It is obvious that exorbitant government charges (29-32 per cent of revenues plus corporate tax) crowd out investment. The government can change this, or give up on establishing a lead in communications and 5G. Worse, India will continue to lose out on leveraging communications for development.
Initiate a breakthrough - Apply Systems Thinking
The government can catalyse a breakthrough by doing the following:
a) Reduce borrowing costs and taxes for communications as infrastructure. This aim of the National Telecom Policy 2012 (NTP-2012) has been ignored.
b) Provide adequate spectrum aligned with global allocations. Given India’s low fibre penetration and need for digital technology, allow shared access to all spectrum and infrastructure, with charges for usage based on revenue sharing.
c) Clear administrative impasses through coordination and due process without delay. For example, allocate spectrum immediately for 12 months for trials.
Many countries have completed 5G spectrum assignments and are already deploying 5G. These include Korea, Switzerland, Finland, UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, Russia, Italy, and Japan.2
There are nearly 300 5G deployments, as shown on an interactive map on Ookla’s site (Chart 1).

Chart 1: 5G Map – June 4, 2019





In this context, Huawei’s role in India is contentious. One issue is of non-discriminatory trading terms, or fairness in competition.  If an entity such as Huawei achieves global dominance through government support, it competes on terms that cannot be matched because of cost of funds and scale advantages. Such entities can establish dominance in any country against competitors who do not enjoy similar support. Second, while Huawei may be doing nothing different from Nokia or Ericsson, the fact that it is supported by a neighbour with apparently hegemonic behaviour, China, suggests that dependence or entanglement are inadvisable.


To succeed with Digital India and 5G, government can begin by classifying communications as infrastructure, and adopting the approach taken for 5 GHz Wi-Fi.  Take pointers from the US FCC, ETSI, and so on; use spectrum and network sharing to leverage equipment and spectrum fully; support local technology champions such as a fabless chip design unit and a network equipment manufacturer in Bangalore, and a wireless equipment manufacturer in Delhi; and focus only on delivery with sustainable revenue generation.



Shyam dot Ponappa at gmail dot com

1: 5G technologies include Multi-User – MIMO (MU-MIMO) to improve reception, small cells for better performance and reduced radiation, WiGig and other high-speed wireless technologies, Software Defined Networks with Network Function Virtualisation, Wireless Resource Virtualisation, and a fibre backbone.

Friday, September 8, 2017

Revamp Telecom Sector & Revive The Economy


Share infrastructure and spectrum, and adopt revenue-sharing for growth.


Shyam Ponappa   |   September 7, 2017


There’s little doubt our economy is facing a slough of problems, including misdirection and loss of momentum. Apart from the present government’s doings or omissions, other legacies have also contributed to this, such as the complacency of previous governments, the scams, the obduracy of the then Opposition, resulting in the attrition of parliamentary processes, and so on. This, followed by the persistently divisive approach of the incumbent government has effectively scuppered any possibility of convergent societal efforts. There’s no point attributing blame for the purposes of redeeming the situation. Instead, we must try to pick up the pieces.

Some things need doing, and urgently, but we (and especially our governments) seem to be avoiding them. Basic infrastructure is our most urgent need, apart from unifying leadership and social institutions. Certain systemic bases simply must be built and made available to organise and channel energies into constructive, productive activities and well-being, although it will be time-consuming and far from easy on our continental scale.  

In infrastructure, broadband can yield the quickest and highest rewards (e.g., http://organizing-india.blogspot.in/2010/10/broadband-for-education-training.html) by adopting policies that enable responsible access to existing resources, instead of continuing with self-imposed administrative restrictions. Everything else — energy, water and sewerage, and transportation — is more complex, and needs far more capital investment and organisation. What’s more, with good communications support, other infrastructure becomes easier to build and manage. On the face of it, the government seems to be addressing this. For example, an Inter-Ministerial Group (IMG) was formed three months ago to recommend solutions for the debt-laden telecomsector. Interim reports did not augur well, though, suggesting there was no need for major policy changes because of signs of recovery. Unfortunately, the IMG’s final recommendations are on the same lines: Deferring spectrum and licence fee payments from 10 years to 16 years, and reducing interest charges by about 2 per cent. However, there is no reduction in licence fees or spectrum charges nor easing of spectrum limits on consolidation; interconnection charges will be decided by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, and spectrum auctions will be after April 2018. But for an overleveraged, hypercompetitive sector, deferring the massive capital requirements for auctions by some months and other proposed measures doesn’t really change the game.  

Will this enable the telecom sector to recover? Many operators and observers think not, including yours truly. The reasons below leave one wondering whether the IMG made their recommendations with full knowledge, or were not fully cognizant of the realities.  

Why major changes are necessary  

There are compelling reasons for radical policy interventions. A report by Strategy& (formerly Booz and Company, now part of PwC) suggests that telecom operators in developing countries have negative margins on data services (see chart).


This is significant for India (a) because we need considerable growth in networks and delivery, (b) that is affordable, (c) yet sustainable, i.e., generates positive cash flows.  

The reality is that the already troubled sector’s revenues fell steeply after Reliance Jio’s entry in 2016, and so did government revenues from licence and spectrum charges. Yet, having upended the sector’s finances, Jio paid only Rs 47.81 crore as licence fees and spectrum charges for the six months ending June 2017, or less than 1 per cent of total operator payments, since it had minimal revenues. By contrast, Bharti Airtel paid Rs 2,902.75 crore, Vodafone Rs 2,005.25 crore, and Idea Cellular Rs 1,677.67 crore. The sector is being severely weakened by this strategy as revenues and government collections collapse, resulting in deficient infrastructure.

While high government revenues alone are the wrong criterion for telecompolicies, this shows how the sector’s finances were gutted, and the likely reality going forward. A recent report by Standard & Poor’s (S&P) expects revenues to fall up to 10 per cent for the year, with the sector settling down over 12-24 months. But that is merely one surmise; the certainty is of continuing damage to the market’s ability to sustain itself, as well as the reality of reduced operating revenues and government collections.  

These disruptive practices are hollowing out industry capacity, whereas the country’s need is for more capacity to be built for broader and better access, given under 300 million data subscribers. Adequate network access needs to be built up in underserved areas, and appropriate content and linkages have to be built for the full range of user needs covering education, health, and entertainment through government and commercial services.  

Only the government can develop appropriate policies and regulations, including levying no more than reasonable charges (high government charges have constrained India’s communications development). After the sector stalled in 1997-98, there was a partial remedy by the National Democratic Alliance through NTP-99, substituting a revenue-sharing arrangement for fees owed through auctions. The government’s share was initially too high, but as it was gradually reduced and as competition increased, mobile telephony grew explosively, as did government revenues (see: http://organizing-india.blogspot.in/2017/04/facts-not-beliefs-should-drive-policies.html).  

For a similar explosive surge in broadband economic revival, we need policy decisions urgently that:  

a) Adopt infrastructure sharing fully to reduce costs. Do this through two or three consortiums to have competition, with government entities anchoring each. For instance, 70 per cent of Sweden is covered by a shared network between Telenor and Hi3G, which is shared outside the major cities. For shared networks, equipment is readily available to support multiple operators; we need the enabling policies.  

b) Approach spectrum as a shared public resource. For assigned spectrum, allow licensed operators and manufacturers/developers secondary access (primary holder retains priority), at reasonable revenue-sharing charges, without up-front fees. Start with unused or under-used frequencies such as TV White Space. 

c) Allocate spectrum for Wi-Fi conforming to global standards to benefit from ecosystems, e.g., 5 GHz and 60 GHz.  

This will enable maximum utilisation of spectrum and networks for the common good, instead of artificially restricting access as is the practice today. We will all benefit greatly from better networks and services, and government revenues will exceed any conceivable auction fees.


Shyam (no-space) Ponappa at gmail dot com

Thursday, August 3, 2017

A New Telecom Policy That Works


A sound NTP-2018 requires sustainable, integrated policies that address our realities.

  Shyam Ponappa   |  August 3, 2017

The government finally announced in July that a new telecom policy (NTP-2018) in consultation with stakeholders would be in place by March 2018.  There’s been some jockeying for one-up statements thereafter, suggesting the risk of being sidetracked. The need for competent, supportive policies in the public interest must be focussed and driven, and not be allowed to fall prey to being hijacked by bluster, nor be diverted towards maximising government revenues, crony interests, or electioneering tub-thumping.


A quick review of the sector and potential demand indicates what’s needed to fulfil our requirements. Telecom operators are saddled with Rs 4.6 lakh crore of high-interest debt. This has resulted from aggressive bids spurred on by spectrum auctions, aggravated by shrinking revenues and price wars. Meanwhile, urgent concurrent needs for network investment for greater reach and delivery, and for realising more of the potential for extensive and intensive usage, languish — for want of capital, enabling policies, and orderly markets. This has resulted in a crisis in what could have become the most successful communications market in the world. Instead, India’s communications sector is partly on the brink of collapse because of retrogressive policies and practices, unsustainable financial models, the fallout of scandal, and disruptive competition.


The best way forward is for all government agencies, not just the Department of Telecommunications, to define objectives jointly, and devise policies through consultations to enable an effective and robust sector. Here are suggestions for what to aim for and what to avoid in developing NTP-2018.


Objectives for NTP-2018


1. Networks: maximise capacity utilisation/throughput


Maximise the utilisation of networks by increasing throughput. This requires exploring alternative forms of organisation and management to exploit invested capital for public interest objectives, e.g., through consortiums, perhaps with government participation to ensure national security and the common good.  Orderly markets are essential in communications (as in all infrastructure), and competition, while essential, is not constructive beyond a point, unlike in fast-moving consumer goods or non-capital intensive sectors.


2. Spectrum allocation and management: Maximise throughput


Maximise wireless throughput to facilitate connectivity, by: a) Making more spectrum available, (b) In large, contiguous bands, (c) At less cost. Explore pooled usage and secondary sharing of spectrum by operators/consortiums as appropriate (consult with operators and experts).


3. Financial approach: Use revenue sharing


Use revenue sharing to compensate for spectrum and network rights, usage, and all government charges, as was done with licence fees in NTP-99.


Pitfalls to avoid


1. Palliative “default solutions”


It is easier to tinker with policies as they are than to undertake major systemic change. An easy way out would be to fall back on the received wisdom of competition and free markets, hoping to muddle through. For instance, the government set up an inter-ministerial group (IMG) to reduce financial stress in telecom. This group has apparently recommended extending payment schedules from 10 to 16 years, and cutting interest rates from 12 to 8 per cent.1 These sops could become the basis of NTP-2018, leaving the market to shake out, hoping consolidation will remedy inadequate coverage and delivery.2 This will merely reschedule operators’ payments over a longer period. The structural problems will remain, with insufficient network coverage, barriers to technology, less likely benefits from innovation such as “wireless fibre” and small cells with lower radiation, with hyper-competitiveness still a drag.


2.  Rely on consultations and avoid preconceived ideas


Statements such as that NTP-2018will be app-directed and not connectivity-directed appear inappropriate or misinformed. This is because connectivity remains our most critical need for more effective delivery of services. Connectivity is deficient not only in rural and semi-urban areas, but even in dense urban areas. In fact, ignoring connectivity is typical of India’s approach to and failure in building networks and infrastructure (incomplete systems because of gaps, or with stranded assets, or that fail in end-to-end delivery). Simply put, our requirement is for more user-access and backhaul/networks to enable higher, more widely available access and throughput. This is India’s communications infrastructure need, whether it is broadband or Narrow Band Internet of Things (NB-IoT). Everything else follows.  Otherwise, it’s like trying to deliver more water without a network of pipelines, or more electricity without adequate distribution networks.


3. Anti-competitive disruption


While disruption is a reality in our communications sector, its jurisdiction has become contentious between the Competition Commission of India(CCI) and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India(TRAI). The CCI reportedly asserted that the Competition Actof 2002 defines “predatory price”, “dominant position”, and “relevant markets”, which fall in its domain, and that it has applied this framework over the last eight years across sectors including telecom.3


Turf issues are not unique to India, and have been resolved in many countries.  Secretary General Pradeep Mehta of Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS) points out that in 2011, a committee recommended amending the Competition Act to include mandatory consultation between the CCIand sector regulators where necessary.


A puzzling question if the telecom sector was in fact being monitored: Why was such disruption permitted? From press reports, it’s unclear whether there are no appropriate regulations, or whether the CCI’s and/or TRAI’s assessments of dominance and predatory pricing rely on precedents from developed economies without appropriate changes for our circumstances. To illustrate, consider the notion that market share is a key criterion for dominance, or Significant Market Power (European Commission).  However, in a developing economy, a large conglomerate investing in a new sector could have SMP even with zero market share, simply because of its size and resources, and economic power (attributes in Section 19(4) of The Competition Act). The European Commission also mentions privileged access to financial resources, economies of scale and scope, and barriers to entry. 


A sound NTP-2018 requires sustainable and integrated end-to-end policies for our realities, not academic or silo-based orthodoxies.





Shyam (no space) Ponappa at gmail dot com

1: “Govt panel for sops to ease financial stress in telecom sector”, BS, July 25, 2017:

2: “Short-term turbulence”, BS, July 29, 2017:

3. "CCI tells Trai to consult it on predatory pricing, market dominance issues", BS, July 28, 2017: