He has sought the response of the DoT on the "question of the level playing field for existing operators" which was raised by the Committee. "Also, the Standing Committee has highlighted the question on identical level of licence fee, etc. on Point No. 67 & 68, which needs to be examined," as per the letter, which is believed to have been sent in the last week on March.

"The Committee on pg. 25 para 63, has drawn attention to some additional advantages accorded to BSOs (basic service operators) due to introduction of limited mobility. I am confident that the contents have been discussed threadbare. However, I would like to have a specific view in this regards," the letter goes on to add.

Meanwhile, the cellular operators are up in arms against the "policy turnaround" by the Government on the issue of limited mobility. The cellular players quote the licence agreement between the basic service operators and the Government signed in 1995, when wireless in local loop (WLL), as a technology was available. The licence agreement had specifically stated that "Basic services do not cover mobile voice and non-voice services" while defining the scope of the service. It also said "the licensee may provide value-added services, other than mobile telecommunications and paging services, after obtaining a separate licence from the licensor."

Even the implementation of National Telecom Policy (NTP)'99 did not change this stand, says a spokesperson of the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI). He pointed out that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), under the chairmanship of Justice Sodhi, had denied limited mobile telephony in a letter written to the DoT on June 9, 1999, in response to a DoT tariff circular dated April 7, 1999.

The letter was written by Mr Narendra Sharma, the then secretary, TRAI on June 9, 1999, to the chairman, telecom commission, with reference to the issue of limited mobility, avers the cellular lobby. According to the letter: "Even in the NTP'99, in the section on Fixed Service Providers, it is noted that the FSP shall be free to provide a service area of operation, all types of fixed services. There is no mention whatsoever of permission to provide limited mobility through WiLL in NTP'99."

Says a senior official of a multi-national telecom giant: ``TRAI never recommended the use of WLL-based limited mobility, till the `Reference' on the issue was sent to the TRAI by the Government on October 9, 2000.''

The Reference sent by the DoT to the TRAI for WLL and mobility on October 9, 2000, also says that "later on in a clarification, the permission for use of subscriber handheld sets was not granted. It was felt that this may amount to a mobile service for which separate licence is required and frequency band was different."

However, according to the cellular operators, pre-determined mindset of the DoT is indicated when it goes on to add, "However, it may be worthwhile to mention that today's subscriber does not want to be tied down by fixed cord of telephone instrument. A wireless subscriber terminal can not be fixed as a wire line terminal and at most it can be portable instead of hand held."The cellular operators also allege that the policy was changed at the behest of the PMO. According to the cellular operators, "The PMO has actively discussed all issues relating to limited mobility for FSPs (fixed service providers). These are minutes of the Strategic Management Group that direct DoT to refer limited mobility to the TRAI."

Pertinently, a press note issued by the Government on March 19, in the wake of the Tehelka controversy, "to draw attention to the correct position in relation to innuendos and insinuations in various publications on limited mobility" says: `An issue regarding provision of limited mobility by basic service operators has also been raised in the articles. The suggestion that the policy has been changed at the behest of the PMO is not correct.''