DoT and VSNL's value-added servicesThis is an apropos of the news item reporting the discontent of the value added service (VAS) providers with the Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) and Department of Telecommunications (DoT). In monopoly regimes the consumers are helpless and choice-less subjects. When the service is a result of more than one network working together, as in the case of EDI, E-mail and Internet access between the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the VSNL, one says that the trouble is always due to the other and that its own path is flawless. It is the personal experience of every telecom user in India that the service providers (DoT, VSNL and MTNL) have never admitted any shortage or deficiency. They would say that they are committed day and night to service and that they are planning additions or relief or improvements. Of course, these are true but these are all as a reaction to and in remedy of deficiencies already afflicting the users.
The VSNL says that it isDOT's decision to preserve the VSNL's monopoly over international segment until the year 2004. There are two things - the infrastructure and services which the infrastructure supports. The former refers to the network of telecom media, the switches, gateways, the submarine and satellite links and so on. The latter refers to the services which the infrastructure supports namely, telephony, data, video, text, graphics etc., which include EDI, electronic mail, store and forward fax, Internet. It is perfectly logical and feasible to preserve monopoly on any one of these two independently and allow competition in the order. It is ridiculous to go on repeating that the VSNL has been given monopoly over the international segment till the year 2004.
That assurance was given without clarifying; that is, whether it is over infrastructure or over infrastructure and services together. Secondly, the context was the VSNL going in for GDRs to raise money in the international markets, a little for its use and mostly forthe use of its master, the DOT. What is the sanctity about this type of assurance?. The government is receiving licence fees of a magnitude unrivalled anywhere from the private cellular mobile and basic telephone companies.
From this licence fees, it is possible to compensate the VSNL for the pre-mature termination of the harmful monopoly given to it at great annoyance, inconvenience and cost of the VAS providers who are paying hefty licence fees. The users cannot be victimised for the pleasure of profit of monopolists or for the preservation of private sector VAS providers. Let the latter as service providers and charge collectors have the freedom to put their own gateways individually, co-operatively or collectively. What matters is good service, reasonable i.e., cash-related prices and customer choice and satisfaction, not his being offered apologies , explanations and false assurances. Monopolies are anachronistic, inefficient and harmful. The Indian telecom monopolies instead of trying to preservetheir monopoly and profits by smothering, the nascent competition, should show their greatness in penetrating the telecom markets which are opening to them in copious measure in the USA and the fifteen countries of the European Economic Union.
Sujatha Hyderabad
Fewer contestants
Number of contestants in 1998-Lok Sabha polls has reduced considerably by elimination of many no-serious candidates from the fray after the Election Commission succeeded in reforms like raising of security-deposit and increasing number of proposers. But vote-cutting candidates can be further reduced by enacting some more reforms. Candidates losing security should be disqualified to contest elections for next six years. To reduce the number of dummy candidates filing nominations, opportunity to rectify nomination forms after scrutiny may be given to rectify technical or clerical mistakes.
It will enable seriously candidates to rectify mistakes of nomination forms to remain in the contest. Election costs must befurther reduced by elimination of useless by-elections. Because a person cannot represent more than one constituency at a time, a person must not be allowed to contest from more than one constituency or for both Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha. Rather a sitting MP or MLA must resign first from his/her earlier seat before filing nomination for the other seat. Such reforms will purify our dirty political system by putting a check on new personality-based parties emerging in large numbers.
Madhu Agrawal -- New Delhi
Copyright(c)1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
