Re: Telcos to add Rs 92,000 crore debt; another auction to hit Airtel, Idea and Vodafone finances severely

  On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:20 AM, v1clist-/[email protected]
<v1clist-/[email protected]>wrote:

> This may not be precisely on target, but let us not forget that we were
> able to, within a very short period of time, re-engineer the standards for
> POTS to build something that had never been done before and never since, a
> modular circuit switch. This was apparently shot down due to political
> rivalries, but I am sure there are many on this list who harbour the
> suspicion that some parts of politics get paid for by business imperatives,
> and there are no free lunches.
>
> My point is that if the need was recognised, it might be possible to build
> a wireless circuit switch that was fairly impervious to competing base
> stations using the same frequencies. Just off the top of my head, perhaps
> an increased overhead in encryption or pgp-type tokens might be the way to
> go. Overhead is less critical in small networks, IMHO, and data throughputs
> at microwave frequencies might forgive the imposition. In any case, a
> completed connection can use a short token password, having used something
> heavier to maintain service integrity in handshaking prior to call
> completion. This would assume that most users get some cell tower or other
> within reach (mostly closer than 8km, ideally), and that the number of
> competing towers is limited. In fact, it would allow 'foreign' towers to
> provide location information, which would lower the gross radiation
> overhead from gsm.
>
> Alternatively, a model might use billing as a differentiator, with
> handsets emitting a service token that determines billing no matter whose
> cell tower does the work at the last mile. But collaboration and
> cooperation are not, so far, considered a Corporate Social Responsibility.
>
> I am sure there are many other possibilities, but without a determined
> national policy on independent communications we have no scope for a 1980s
> style CDOT. Sadly, that same outfit is now being used by the private
> sector-fueled New Security Regime to build intrusive tools to further
> weaken independent communications. Our Technology Missions in telecom are
> today (stewarded by the same man who promised us telecom independence in
> POTS!) focused on spending public money to reinvent the wheel retread
> operation already done (putting in dark fiber) in large part by industry
> and service sectors (private telecom, railways and roads).
>
> Globally, other than the very artisan-like initiatives for WiFi-style
> global connectivity, most of which focus on the needs of very small and
> disempowered communities, there is no pushback against the present model of
> industry-led, personal privacy/security weakening communication
> technologies. We don't hear much these days from our resident tele-conomist
> Andy Banerjee, but I suspect he might have thrown some light on the present
> trend towards inflating costs through the introduction of unneeded
> overheads (I'm not even counting our noble netas!) and creation of scarcity
> in open resources. I, for one, don't think this is Development.
>
> And now that I have vicariously introduced the subject of developmental
> economics, may I say that the virtues of creating centralised kitties
> (including the use of economy-sapping auctions) for development spending,
> over that of deploying and encouraging growth at the last mile to spur
> self-development and innovation, are not clear. What is the case for the
> top-down model and which country has actually gained from it? Were all
> material resources as inexhaustible as spectrum, and our planet blessed
> with some magical energy cancelling field, we might be able to sustain the
> antediluvian model of industrial activity that fueled the UK and USA's
> march to control the planet's resources, but left in its wake an
> unsustainable employment ethic. But they aren't.
>
> Finally, as for invincible security in gsm, a small anecdote. Yesterday, I
> get a call from a lady obviously expecting somebody well known to her to
> come collect her from the airport, as per plan. I politely told her
> (unknown number on my phone screen) that she had the wrong number and
> disconnected, thinking the voice sounded familiar. A few minutes later my
> brother calls, tells me it was my sister-in-law at the airport waiting for
> him, and that she had selected his name from her address book, or speed
> dialled him. Our names are not similar enough for her to accidentally click
> on the wrong name (instead of the one most familiar to her!). We don't use
> the same service providers, we don't live in the same city (thankfully, at
> least we're in the same country, so saved on isd charges), and we don't
> have similar sets of numbers. And her name didn't show up on my screen, so
> the calling number was some random allocation. The fault could be her
> device, or it could be a goof-up at the switch. I tend to think it is the
> switch.
>
> Vickram
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android<https://uk.overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
>
>  ------------------------------
> * From: * Arun Mehta <[email protected]>;
> * To: * Jim Forster <[email protected]>;
> * Cc: * <[email protected]>;
> * Subject: * Re: [india-gii] Telcos to add Rs 92,000 crore debt; another
> auction to hit Airtel, Idea and Vodafone finances severely
> * Sent: * Sun, Feb 16, 2014 5:56:22 AM
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2014 3:51 AM, "Jim Forster" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Another idea that's come up recently for spectrum, as a kind of half-way
> point, is Primary & Secondary Users.  Primary holders have full rights.
>  Secondary holders can use as long as they don't interfere (by some
> measure) with Primary holders.
>
> Indeed that is the WiFi model -- this distinction between primary and
> secondary holders already exists in Indian policy.
>
> >
> > For better or worse, the reality is that GSM/UMTS/LTE is designed to
> operated without having to cope with other base stations, so a single
> operator per frequency per area is pretty much required.  WiFi is designed
> to be quite resilent, but not GSM/UMTS/LTE.  But a Secondary License regime
> would work for GSM/UMTS/LTE.
>
> These technologies were not designed to share, so of course they aren't
> good at it. If the government were to open up some spectrum, say the
> terrestrial TV spectrum, but only to those who can share, then very soon
> the technologies that would work would appear. Indeed, it would be great if
> terrestrial TV is permitted for community TV. Every TV set in the country
> can receive terrestrial analog TV, and it is a pity we do not use this
> opportunity to reach large numbers  of poor Indians.
>

IMHO, the key objectives around all the "structure", "regulations" put
around telecommunication services are:
- Bring in revenues for the government -- direct and indirect, large
infrequent windfalls and recurring ones.
- Keep control on service (aka 'kill switch' a-la Arab spring context for
various purposes)
- Communication monitoring, often in the name of security (i.e. wiretap
a-la NSA)
- Adhering to internationally accepted standards of communication (the
'obligation' towards rest-of-the-world, and the established forms of
communication), permit "roaming" (in and out) using a technology that is
widely adopted (think handsets, and costs there-of thanks to
economy-of-scales)
- Take care of business interest of the people who have invested heavily in
the existing technology and modes of communication. Else you live with the
fear of scaring away investors.

The current arrangement works very well in taking care of the above
objectives. OTOH, something that is free, open and ubiquitous often
contradict those objectives. The question of whether a technology exists
that can enable anybody or everybody to setup and offer communication
service to anybody, is not pertinent. As you rightly said, it is not
difficult to create technology for same, even though WiFi +
WiMAX-for-backhaul are quite able to take care of it all, VoIP being
commodity. Till this date, GoI doesn't permit linking VoIP islands and
PSTN/PLMN by private parties, so the openness we are dreaming of, is a
fantasy for now.

_______________________________________________
India-gii mailing list
India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii