Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Business Standard
India's Sorry Spectrum Story
The network of roads is mostly public property. What if the government decided
to make more money from our use of this property? Made users pay for these
public assets, whether the roads are there, or yet to be built? Demanded up-
front fees for a fixed-term right, followed by annual fees marked-to-market to
reflect “fair market value”...
All roads would be expensive, and few people would be able to afford their use.
Imagine what it would do to plans to build new roads. Imagine how much you
would have to pay for road use, how usage would drop, the sheer inconvenience,
and the impediments to productivity.
For instance, Bharti and Vodafone paid Rs 12,300 crore and Rs 11,600 crore
respectively up front for 3G spectrum. This is one reason why India won’t get
widespread broadband networks in a hurry, nor reasonably priced services. The
investment in spectrum fees and networks is so high that operators will probably
offer limited, high-margin products. They will focus on high-traffic routes and
ignore the rest, serving 50-100 million, instead of a billion: exactly the opposite
of what we need.
Consequences
• The average spectrum available per user is of the order of 5.5 MHz in
India, compared to an international average of about 22 MHz.
Delhi and Mumbai have cell sites that are less than 100 metres apart, compared
with around 200 metres in Istanbul, 300 metres in Munich, and 350 metres in
Berlin. Decreased inter-cell distances increase interference, thus restricting
capacity. If each operator has more spectrum, traffic-handling capacity increases
at a lower cost. Improving technical efficiency at the cost of economic efficiency
loses out on capacity at low cost. Cellular operators in India are forced to extract
greater spectrum efficiency (see Figure 1), which sounds good until you factor in
the increased costs and opportunity losses.
Plum Consulting, December 2008: David Lewin, Val Jervis, Chris Davis, Ken Pearson.
http://www.plumconsulting.co.uk/pdfs/GSMA%20spectrum%20management
%20policy%20in%20India.pdf
The report from which Figure 1 is taken estimates that spectrum assignments
increased to international norms would have lowered industry costs by 21 per
cent (Rs 11,700 crore or $2.6 billion in 2008). This would have resulted in more
extensive coverage at less cost, with greater consumer welfare.
" • The claims regarding the scale of the capacity increases possible with the use
of various techniques are significantly overstated.
• The claims wrongly assume that the capacity gains from the different
techniques are additive. This is simply not true in a number of cases. For
example, the gain achievable with DFCA is less if AMR has already been
implemented.
• There are substantial costs associated with deploying advanced techniques —
both for operators in terms of network upgrades and for end users in terms of
new handsets.
Why should governments be concerned when stock prices fall? For the same
reasons they should want stable markets: investment and prosperity, leading to
public welfare. It makes little sense to entice investment into high-potential,
sunrise sectors, only to batter successful enterprises with arbitrary “taxes”.
Bharti described the changes as “shocking, arbitrary and retrograde”; Vodafone
called them “opaque, illogical and discriminatory”.
Like an absurd play, events have taken a surreal turn, with the Department of
Telecommunications reportedly demanding spectrum fees from the Defence
Department. However, no additional demands were made on companies cashing
in on assigned spectrum rights that sold for windfall gains without any networks
or users. This seems equally absurd.