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

Not sure if people have read this:

http://telecomtiger.com/PolicyNRegulation_fullstory.aspx?storyid=19749&passfrom=vasstory&section=S174


On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Banibrata Dutta
<[email protected]>wrote:

>   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.
>
>


-- 
regards,
Banibrata
http://www.linkedin.com/in/bdutta
http://twitter.com/edgeliving

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