In the context of DoT's appeal against the ruling of TRAI on matters of cellular operations and even more so the reasoning offered for its rejection of a plea by Hughes Ispat to float two independent subsidiaries for operating basic services in Maharashtra and Karnataka, the case for ending the dual role of DoT gets strengthened.

There will be no real liberalisation if DoT is going to forever function both as a regulator and a key player in the telecom sector. The argument advanced against Hughes Ispat's proposal is that it involves a number of legal implications including the replacement of foreign and Indian partners.

Agreed that in the past there had been attempts by certain operators to sell their licences to others, yet when the regulator-cum-major player is all over the place how can it object in principle to the floating of two independent subsidiaries by the same private sector company for different states? No doubt, with the emergence of TRAI, DoT's diktat can be called into question and the Department is not going to like it. But then, the process of appeals and counter-appeals is going to be time-consuming and the bureaucracy in DoT might have the last laugh. For, how many operators will have the patience to go though the drill?

With TRAI in place, is it really necessary for the Telecom Commission to be around in a capacity that is glaringly anti-competition? Shouldn't the former have the infrastructure to take on the entire rule-fixing role of the Commission?

The public sector constituent of the telecom sector must operate as an autonomous corporation and not any longer as an administrative department of the Government. Nobody is saying that the public sector should pull out of the basic services segment. Let DoT continue as a player on par — only on par — with the newcomers. What is objectionable is the fact that its regulatory clout is being used to minimise competition.

The idea is not to have total anarchy in the telecom sector. There must be norms and those in the fray should not be doing a lot of hanky-panky in the name of reform. The rule book must be in place and be held out against erratic performers. But DoT's own track record under Sukh Ram was not really exemplary in the matter of regulation.

In regard to cellular operations, the earlier order was quite arbitrary and TRAI's intervention was entirely justified. But even allowing for this, one can say that the regulator's motives will be less suspect if only it is not a player. TRAI must take on the regulatory function of the Telecom Commission and let the Commission only operate as a player.

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.