This is also precisely the reason why TRAI has taken exception to the launch. The regulatory body has not approved the tariff structure for the service and feels that it was not right on MTNL's part to launch the initiative without its approval. MTNL, however, claims that it has merely extended its wireless in local loop (WiLL) services for which it did not need TRAI's approval. Whether or not TRAI's approval is required is only a secondary issue. The larger issue at hand is: why should consumers be denied access to a service simply because it is being made available cheap?

True, cellular service providers have incurred huge infrastructural expenditure and it would be difficult for them to match MTNL's tariffs. But it is also true that a WiLL service has several limitations as compared to a cellular service thereby justifying a premium for cellular services. Yet, if consumers prefer a WiLL service because it is more affordable, there is no reason to oppose the proliferation of such a service. In fact, it should be encouraged.

What the regulatory authority needs to ensure, however, is that there is no cross-subsidisation of the service by MTNL and that there is a level playing field for all operators. As long as MTNL's cost advantage is a function of the technology platform that it uses and consumers are well aware of the limitations of a WiLL service as compared with a cellular service, there is little reason for TRAI's intervention.